Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

HILLINGDON ESTATE BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE ESTATE BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Stoney Stanton Road Hospital, Coventry

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the additional bed capacity together with the additional staff complement resulting from the completion of Item 4 in the rebuilding at Stoney Stanton Road Hospital could be carried for a limited period by the present kitchens, and if he will give a higher priority for completion date to Item 4 so that it may be ready for use at least six months before the kitchen block.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Iain Macleod): I have no reason to suppose that work on the kitchen block is likely to delay progress with the additional wards.

Miss Burton: Is the Minister aware that I very much appreciate the trouble he took in getting an opinion on this matter? Is he also aware, however, that the medical staff who have to work in this hospital have told me definitely that the present kitchens could carry this additional load for six months? Will he look into that point again?

Mr. Macleod: I have looked into that matter, but even if I could switch labour and materials, the delay in completing the new kitchens would, in my view extend too far into the period during which the existing kitchens would have to cope with the additional load.

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Health whether, as plans were approved on 20th October last, he is now in a position to give details of the progress made on Item 2, kitchen, dining and clinical service block, in the phase three rebuilding at Stoney Stanton Road Hospital, in Coventry.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I am informed that the contract has been let and that the first site meeting has been held but delay in steel deliveries is likely to prevent the starting of the work for some months yet.

Miss Burton: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman—although this is probably rather a difficult question for him to answer—whether he feels that the regional hospital board has acted with the celerity which one would have expected of it? We have been concerned with this matter for a long time, and now we are told that there is to be a further month's delay.

Mr. Macleod: This delay, which is entirely a matter of steel, has nothing to do with the regional hospital board. I have not been satisfied wholly with the progress of this work, wherever the responsibility may lie, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for helping to expedite the matter.

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Health when he expects to receive an answer from the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board concerning Item 4 in the phase three rebuilding at Stoney Stanton Road Hospital, Coventry; and if he will make a detailed statement as to his criticisms of the plans submitted by the Board for this particular item.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The Board's answer reached my Department on 16th December. I am sending the hon. Member an extract from a letter to the Board giving my criticisms of the plans.

Miss Burton: Is the Minister aware how helpful was the tabular answer that he inserted in the OFFICIAL REPORT On 25th April? Would he feel able now to


put in a similar answer giving the same details for all the seven contracts involved in this matter, so that we can see what progress is being made?

Mr. Macleod: Certainly. If the hon. Lady puts down a Written Question, I will give that information.

Frenchay Hospital, Bristol

Mr. Dudley Williams: asked the Minister of Health how many wards of the Frenchay Hospital, Bristol, are closed due to the shortage of nursing staff.

Mr. Iain Macleod: One ward of twenty beds has not yet been brought into use because of shortage of nursing staff.

Mr. Williams: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he will restrict any further building of hospitals in Bristol in view of the shortage of nursing staff, especially when there are greater demands for hospital accommodation in other parts of the south-west region, such as in Exeter, where they can get the nurses?

Mr. Macleod: This seems to be a private war between Bristol and Exeter in which I am neutral.

Maternity Wing, Royal Northern Hospital

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the serious inconvenience that will result if, as proposed by the regional hospital board, the Maternity Wing at the Royal Northern Hospital is closed; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I am considering the implications of this proposal.

Mr. Fletcher: I do not know what that means, but I hope that, in saying that he is considering the implications of the proposal, the Minister will tell us that he has not made up his mind, because it would—does he not realise—be a very serious thing if people who would normally go to the maternity wing of the Royal Northern Hospital had to go—as I am told would be the case—as far away as Mile End for their confinements? There will be great hardship if this proposal is persisted in.

Mr. Macleod: I have not, of course, made up my mind, which is what my Answer implied. I should not think that

the hardship involved would be anything like that suggested by the hon. Gentleman. He knows that this all arose because of an outbreak of infection in the unit, which had to be closed, so that people had to travel rather farther than usual because there was an emergency. The London Hospital and the Whittington Hospital are both within a mile or so of this hospital.

Dr. Summerskill: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Whittington Hospital, which he has mentioned, and the City of London Hospital, mean a very long journey for expectant mothers? The right hon. Gentleman must consider that it is a special class of patient which attends these hospitals. When he tells the House that he is considering the implications, will he say precisely what he means? The Royal Northern Hospital is situated in a most densely populated area, and I should like to know how many women were delivered in this wing in the last year, and just what are the implications which the Minister has in mind.

Mr. Macleod: The implications which I have in mind are whether this unit, which is by no means a satisfactory one from the planning point of view, can or cannot be used better for another purpose under the National Health Service. As far as the distances of the hospitals are concerned, they are only a little more than a mile away from the Royal Northern Hospital. As far as the actual number of deliveries are concerned, perhaps the right hon. Lady will put down a Question.

Mr. Fletcher: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply and of the great hardship which is already being caused by the uncertainty in this matter, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Birmingham

Mr. V. Yates: asked the Minister of Health if he has yet approved the temporary extension of the casualty department at Selly Oak Hospital, Birmingham; in what way this extension will relieve the outpatient department; and when he proposes to give priority to the major schemes considered necessary to relieve the present overcrowding of both


casualty and outpatient departments at this hospital.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Yes, Sir. Four treatment cubicles, relatives' waiting rooms and other facilities will be provided. In reply to the last part of the Question, I am unable to add to my reply to the hon. Member on 31st October.

Mr. Yates: Is the Minister aware that the improvement to the casualty department, for which I am grateful, can in no way possibly affect the outpatient department? As this has been most unsatisfactory for the last 18 years, I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman will make an inquiry of the management of the hospital, as he will find that what I have said is correct? Why should this hospital be regarded as a Cinderella?

Mr. Macleod: I will certainly look into that question, but I should have thought that what I have said about the casualty department would be bound to relieve pressure on the outpatient department.

Mr. V. Yates: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that delay occurs in obtaining beds for children suffering from diphtheria or suspected diphtheria in Birmingham; and if he will take steps to see that adequate arrangements are made to prevent any delay in future.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I am not aware of any such delay, but if the hon. Member has any case in mind and sends me particulars I will certainly look into it.

Mr. Yates: I will certainly do so. May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman will examine the arrangements for instructing doctors in such cases, because they have been rather held up in some cases, and that is rather serious in infectious cases?

Mr. Macleod: I have been in touch with the regional hospital board and it does not know of any delay in this field. If the hon. Member has evidence, perhaps he will send it to me.

Dr. Stross: May I ask whether there have been any cases of diphtheria in the past twelve months in the Birmingham area, and, if so, how many?

Mr. Macleod: I cannot say without notice, but the figures for the country last year reached a level of only 266 cases notified against 41,000 in 1942. There has been a dramatic drop.

Mental Hospitals (Involuntary Patients)

Dr. D. Johnson: asked the Minister of Health if he will enumerate the persons or official bodies to whom an involuntary patient in a mental hospital is allowed to address unopened and unsupervised correspondence.

Mr. Iain Macleod: These are set out in Section 41 (1) of the Lunacy Act, 1890, and I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

Dr. Johnson: May I ask my right hon. Friend if the detained person's Member of Parliament is on that list?

Mr. Macleod: No, he is not, but it has always been the custom that letters to Members of Parliament should be forwarded.

Dr. Johnson: Will my right hon. Friend make such an inclusion in the list?

Mr. Macleod: There is no immediate prospect of legislation in that field and I am not sure that it would be a suitable subject for legislation, but when the Royal Commission reports, perhaps in a few months' time, this is a matter which might well be considered.

Mental Deficiency Cases, Norfolk (Accommodation)

Mr. Dye: asked the Minister of Health whether he will take further steps to obtain possession of County School, North Elmham, Norfolk, for the accommodation of mental deficiency cases, in view of the need that now exists for such purpose.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I am considering what further steps to this end are justifiable.

Mr. Dye: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a vast number of people in Norfolk would be most grateful to him if he could pursue steps which could obtain this building entirely for the use of such children in view of the large numbers awaiting admission?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, Sir, I know the need, and here there is a willing seller and a willing buyer. The complication, as I am sure the hon. Member knows, is that there is a restrictive covenant which raises some important legal matters that will take some little time to resolve.

Morpeth and Stanningate

Mr. Owen: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the wastage of qualified staff at St. George's Hospital, Morpeth, and St. Mary's Hospital at Stanningate; and what steps are being taken to encourage recruitment.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): Yes, Sir, my right hon. Friend understands that there has been some net loss of qualified male nurses during the past year. The hospital management committees are advertising the vacancies, and they are in touch with the Nursing Appointments Officer of the Ministry of Labour and National Service, who is doing everything possible to help them.

Mr. Owen: Is the hon. Lady aware that some of the main deterrents to recruitment for these hospitals arise from the physical conditions there, the limited amenities available to the staff and the general feeling that promotion on the male side is very slow? Would she be good enough to make further inquiries into this matter?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Certainly, I will look into the points that the hon. Member has raised. I recognise the difficulties of these two hospitals. St. George's is in keen competition with local industries, which also are short of staff, and St. Mary's is in an isolated position, which makes recruitment difficult. I assure the hon. Member, however, that by a cadet scheme and by advertising, we are doing our utmost to increase the staff; while there has been a reduction in the male staff, I am glad to say that there has been a net gain of female nursing staff.

Mr. Owen: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the serious overcrowding at St. George's Hospital, Morpeth; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Yes, Sir. Eighty new beds have come into use at this hospital in the last few months and further extensions are planned.

Mr. Owen: Is the Minister aware that St. George's Hospital is a hundred years old, that a ward designed for 48 beds now has 126 beds, that the beds are so close together that it is almost physically impossible to make them; and, further,

that on the adjoining farm, as I can assure the Minister from a personal visit, the animals seem to have very much more room than patients in some of the wards of the hospital?

Mr. Macleod: I assure the hon. Member, also from personal experience, that I know the hospital and I know even that ward. We have been doing what we can to give it priority, and there are schemes to the value of more than £300,000 which will very greatly help to relieve the overcrowding there.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the Minister satisfied that there will be sufficient current funds available for running expenses to maintain any developments that may be approved on the capital side?

Mr. Macleod: Of course, we never go ahead with capital expenditure until we are satisfied that we can carry the additional maintenance burden.

Capital Expenditure

Mr. Simmons: asked the Minister of Health (1) to what extent it is his policy to allow the use by hospital management committees of amenity funds for the carrying out of capital projects;
(2) if he is aware that No. 17 Group, Dudley and Stourbridge, of the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board has had to spend £8,000 out of its free money for urgently necessary capital expenditure; and if he will arrange for this sum to be repaid by his Department.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I do not know what specific projects the hon. Member has in mind but I welcome proposals by hospital authorities for the use of non-Exchequer funds for urgently needed capital works and see no reason to repay any such expenditure from the Exchequer.

Mr. Simmons: Would the Minister agree that adequate waiting room accommodation, a dispensary, a pathological laboratory, occupational therapy and staff recreation rooms ought all to be part of the normal hospital services and that it is unfair that the amenity fund should be used for these purposes to the detriment of the comfort of the patients? Could he not agree, even if he does not repay this money immediately, to repay it when the economic situation looks a little better?

Mr. Macleod: All those developments are, of course, important and, if financed by Exchequer funds, would have to take their place with other competing claims in the area. I think, however, that it would obviously be a very bad system to repay expenditure of this nature, for all that would mean is that the very wealthy hospitals—and there are many—could rebuild their premises completely, if necessary, and claim back all the money from the Exchequer. I must have regard to priorities in this field.

Ionising Radiations (Protection of Staff)

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Health what action he is taking to ensure the protection of hospital staffs against radiation hazards.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The Radioactive Substances Advisory Committee has submitted to me a code of practice for the protection of persons working with ionising radiations in hospitals. This will form the basis of advice which I hope to send to all hospitals shortly.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the existing practice varies greatly between one hospital and another in this respect? Would he consult the Minister of Labour about the responsibility for issuing the necessary orders under the Radioactive Substances Act? If it turns out to be his, will he consult himself?

Financial Allocations, Newcastle Region

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Health what financial provision he will make for 1956–57 to enable the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board to meet arrears of repairs and maintenance and to enable it to employ the staff urgently required if efficient services are to be developed.

Mr. Iain Macleod: As I have already informed regional hospital boards, I hope to notify the allocations for their regions for 1956–57 about mid-February, 1956.

Mr. Blenkinsop: But is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there will be sufficient finance to enable the new schemes of capital development which he has approved to take place, and also to ensure that we can catch up on some of the backlog of work which has been waiting for so long?

Mr. Macleod: All these matters are very much in our minds, and we are at the moment in the middle of the ordinary negotiations with the regional boards and the Treasury on them.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it is likely he will be able to answer this point more fully?

Mr. Macleod: I have already said in mid-February.

Dame Irene Ward: Will it be only in my right hon. Friend's mind or will it also be in hard cash to the regional hospital boards, especially in the North?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Doctors' Lists, London

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that doctors' lists in the London area of the National Health Service now contain 8,487 more names than the total population of the area; what the effect is on the cost of the Service; and what steps he is taking to rectify this anomaly.

Miss Horsnby-Smith: My right hon. Friend knows of this estimate; on the second and third parts of the Question he cannot yet add to his reply to the hon. and gallant Member on 25th July.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is this not a fantastic situation in which, although the right hon. Gentleman has been warned about it, nothing apparently has been done? What steps is the Ministry taking to ensure that these grossly inflated figures are not tolerated any longer than is absolutely necessary?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The executive councils and the doctors have been notified, but it is an extremely difficult matter, where no notification has been given, to check and trace immediately people who have died or who have moved from one area to another. The ultimate aim would be to have a central alphabetical index as well as the present numerical one, but it is an extremely difficult task. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will be aware that there are, for example, hundreds of thousands of Smiths with the same initials and, indeed, with the same Christian names, who have to be dealt with. I


should like to correct a misapprehension which appears in his Question. This situation does not increase our payments to doctors, as they draw their fees from the general pool.

Albomycin

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Health, as representing the Lord President of the Council, whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that many strains of staphylococcal germs are resistant to penicillin but not to the antibiotic albomycin, discovered and developed in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; and whether he will approach the Ministry of Health in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for supplies of this antibiotic for clinical trial in British hospitals.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Members of the staff of the Medical Research Council discussed the properties of albomycin with the doctors who recently visited this country from the Soviet Union. The Council is endeavouring to obtain a supply of this antibiotic from the Soviet Union so that its properties can be investigated.

Dr. Stross: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.

Chronic Bronchitis and Tuberculosis

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the death rate from chronic bronchitis in adult males varies greatly in different localities, and in the same locality in those engaged in different industries; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the cause and prevention of this malady.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I am aware of the facts to which the hon. Member refers. Some aspects of the problem are already being considered by my Standing Medical Advisory Committee and, I am informed, by a working party of the Medical Research Council.

Mr. Hastings: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the death rate from bronchitis in this country is higher than in most countries, if not, indeed, in any other country? Does the right hon. Gentleman also realise the number of days' work that are lost every year through this affection, and does he not feel it is time that a serious attempt was made to discover how it can be prevented?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, indeed, I feel it is time that we did that, and it is exactly for that reason that the two inquiries which I mentioned in my reply have been put in hand. In addition, I am informed that in the New Year the Industrial Health Advisory Committee of the Ministry of Labour is also to take up this problem.

Mr. Hastings: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how soon the reports are expected from these two bodies?

Mr. Macleod: I cannot prophesy about that, but it is regarded as an urgent matter.

Dr. Summerskill: As the mortality rate from chronic bronchitis is higher in my constituency than in any other in the country, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is advised that the mortality rate varies in direct ratio to the degree of air pollution?

Mr. Macleod: I should not have thought that it was in direct ratio, but there is beyond doubt a connection between the two.

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to recent evidence indicating that a not inconsiderable proportion of those living in common lodging houses and reception centres are suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis and liable to infect others; and whether he will call the attention of local authorities to the desirability of X-ray examination of such people and provision for the necessary treatment.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I am aware of the situation to which the hon. Member refers and am considering how best to deal with it.

Mr. Hastings: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind that tuberculosis is an infectious disease and as many as ten new cases have been traced to one individual? If he really wants to get rid of this disease, will he bear in mind that he will have to deal with it by a certain amount of restriction and care of those who are spreading it?

Mr. Macleod: I have been anxious about this matter for some time and the Parliamentary Secretary has been going into the question of what we can do. We


are having a meeting very soon with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the National Assistance Board to formulate a joint plan of action.

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Health whether he has noted the lowering of the death rate from tuberculosis in recent years, whilst the death rate from chronic bronchitis and allied lung disorders is rising; and whether he will give consideration to using the services of the anti-tubercular clinics and their skilled medical personnel to deal with these latter disorders.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I have noted the encouraging fall in the death rate from tuberculosis, but the numbers of new cases notified have not been falling so quickly and still make heavy demands on the chest clinics. Nor do I accept the suggestion that the death rate from chronic bronchitis is rising.

Dr. Stross: Will not the Minister accept the possibility that there may be, if, as we all hope, we are successful in further combating tuberculosis, the danger to consider that the staffs and premises of those clinics may no longer be needed? Is he aware that the point of my Question is to put to him the point that inasmuch as there is very much chronic bronchitis and allied chest disorders, those staffs should be considered for dealing with those diseases?

Mr. Macleod: The figures of bronchitis must be studied with great care, because they are not always comparable, owing to the changes in the international classification. It is true that we can look forward to having a considerable increase in resources from the fact that the beds for tuberculous patients are not so much used as they have been, but I do not think that time has yet come.

Mr. Blenkinsop: May we take it from the Minister that he gives full support to the inquiries, in which, I know, he is interested, in Newcastle and elsewhere, following this matter up, and that he will waste no time in putting the recommendations into force?

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Health the number of deaths from tuberculosis and from chronic bronchitis in Stoke-on-Trent for 1928 and 1954.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The numbers of deaths from tuberculosis in the County Borough of Stoke-on-Trent for the years in question are:

1928
…
…
…
…
322


1954
…
…
…
…
80

The numbers of deaths from chronic bronchitis in local areas are not available.

Dr. Stross: In view, however, of the fact that in that city there are industries such as the pottery, steel and coal mining industries, which are all industries in which there is respiratory risk from the inhalation of noxious material, would the right hon. Gentleman consider using the departments available, such as the chest clinics there, so that these and other respiratory diseases may there be examined and treated?

Mr. Macleod: I very much welcome the interest which the hon. Gentleman shows in this matter. If we can advantageously switch resources we shall do so.

General Practitioners (Accommodation)

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Health to what extent local health authorities have provided accommodation for general practitioners in premises in which their clinics are held so that the advantages of close association between services for prevention and cure may be obtained without the cost of new building.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: My right hon. Friend is not aware of any such cases unless the hon. Member has in mind health centres.

Mr. Hastings: Would not the hon. Lady agree with Lord Dawson of Penn that one cannot separate prevention and cure, and is it not desirable, wherever possible—and as I believe is being done to some extent in Birmingham—to associate practitioners with preventive services?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: My right hon. Friend would encourage any experimental scheme for associating general practitioners with the local health services, especially in co-ordinating antenatal work, provided it is both legally and financially justifiable. The hon. Gentleman is aware, as will ensue from a following Question, that a considerable number of experiments, which vary in


their application, are being carried out on the health centre basis, and we are watching them with great interest.

Health Centres

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Health whether he will make a statement on the development of health centres, in view of the valuable experience Gained at Harlow and elsewhere.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Six new health centres have been provided under the National Health Service Act, 1946, in addition to twenty-four premises taken over as centres by local health authorities in 1948. A seventh new centre was opened formally last week and a small number of schemes are at various stages of planning and construction.
My right hon. Friend will continue to support, so far as he can, further experimentation where new facilities for local health authorities and general practice are needed and co-operation between these branches of the service can be achieved. He welcomes the initiative of the Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust and other bodies in sponsoring other experiments at Harlow and elsewhere. These, together with the centres provided by local health authorities, will give valuable experience from which future projects will no doubt profit.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Has the hon. Lady taken note of this work, particularly at Harlow, and, in view of the great value of the type of centre which is being developed there, would she and her right hon. Friend be prepared to consider whether any detailed amendment of the Health Service Act might be necessary in order to encourage this sort of co-operation between the preventive and the after-care services which we so much want?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I think the hon. Gentleman will agree, as indeed we do, that the experience of these new centres and of how they will work in a year or so from the time of their inception will be of great benefit in judging their future use, but it would be idle to ignore the fact that needs vary from area to area. While these centres might serve a vital need in a new community, they are not always as applicable in old-established residential areas. I think that we must work on the experience gained from the most useful schemes now under way.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the hon. Lady at least see that we do not lose the chance of developing health centres in newly-developed areas or where there is, perhaps, a complete redevelopment of an old industrial area, before doctors establish themselves in private houses?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I think that all these points are taken into consideration, particularly in new areas.

Heroin

Dr. Broughton: asked the Minister of Health his estimate of the quantity of heroin that has been stocked by hospitals since it became known that the further manufacture of the drug was likely to be banned.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I am aware that some hospitals have increased their stocks, but I cannot, without extensive inquiry, estimate the increase throughout the country.

Dr. Broughton: Is it not a fact that many of our hospitals, including some of the greatest teaching hospitals in the world, have been increasing their stocks of heroin since they heard of the threat to ban the manufacture of the drug? Is that not very strong evidence that many of the most distinguished members of the medical profession hold the opinion that there is no suitable and equally effective substitute for the drug, and will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that that is made abundantly clear in the White Paper which the Home Secretary has promised to publish?

Mr. Macleod: It is evidence, of course, of a conflict of view in the medical profession. We have always known that that conflict existed.

Mr. K. Robinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how he views this extraordinary exploitation on the part of some hospitals, which is designed solely to evade the decision which his Department has taken? Will he say whether he proposes to sanction this increased expenditure?

Mr. Macleod: I think that Question No. 18 covers that point.

Dr. D. Johnson: asked the Minister of Health the number of registered heroin addicts who are at present licensed to


receive the drug by National Health prescription; and what arrangements he proposes to make in respect of these people subsequent to the ban on the drug.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Heroin addicts are not registered or licensed to receive heroin, and a patient receives heroin under the National Health Service only if his doctor prescribes it as being necessary for his treatment. If heroin were not available it would be for the doctor to decide which, if any, of the various alternative drugs should be prescribed.

Dr. Johnson: May I ask my right hon. Friend if, in spite of what he has said, he will be mindful of the danger of the fact that these people, many of whom are chronic addicts, will form a hard core for the illicit traffic in drugs in the event of heroin being stopped? In particular, did my right hon. Friend see in last week's Lancet the letter by a medical man in which he mentioned that two of the addicts he was treating had been approached by pedlars in drugs?

Mr. Macleod: I saw that letter, which I thought was a very strange one for a doctor to write. In reply to the first part of the question, I would say that the number of addicts in this country is known to be so small that I do not think they would provide any appreciable traffic in an illicit trade.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Health which London hospitals have, in view of the intended ban, increased their normal stocks of heroin; and whether he has approved the additional expenditure thereby incurred.

Mr. Iain Macleod: In reply to the first part of the Question. I regret that the information is not available. There would, of course, be no question of approval to additional expenditure for such a purpose but authority is not required for the purchase of drugs within the total of the approved budget.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is it not quite deplorable that a small group of doctors should have made up their mind to sabotage the ban the Government were intending to impose? Is the Minister not going to make clear that further attempts to evade the ban which the Government are standing by at the moment will be viewed with disfavour by him?

Mr. Macleod: This is a difficult question. We do not control the stocks of drugs which a hospital chooses to purchase, and even after reflection I do not want to issue any form of instruction on this matter; I think that would be going too far. On the other hand, it is right to say—this is, I think, behind the Question of the hon. and gallant Member—that this is an expenditure of public money and, that, therefore, those who spend it should take into account the views of the Government.

Mr. Remnant: Will my right hon. Friend remember that, in answer to a Question last week, he told me that he desired to leave the doctors to prescribe what drugs they thought fit, and will he take no action which would handicap hospital boards doing exactly that?

Mr. Macleod: I have covered that point in my reply to the last supplementary question.

Dr. Broughton: asked the Minister of Health from which body of medical opinion he has sought expert advice since meeting a deputation from the British Medical Association in July, 1955.

Mr. Iain Macleod: None. No medical considerations were put forward by the Association which had not already been before the Standing Medical Advisory Committee.

Dr. Broughton: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that when he had had such strong representations from the British Medical Association opposing the proposal he should have put the matter again before the Medical Advisory Committee, or, better still, before the Royal Colleges, and informed them of the protest of the Medical Association and asked them to consider the matter?

Mr. Macleod: The Chairman of the Council of the B.M.A., who led the deputation protesting to the Government against the ban, was one of those present at the meeting who concurred in the advice that the ban should be imposed. The reply to the other part of the question is that the considerations put forward were not strictly medical ones on which it might be necessary to have further advice, but related essentially to professional matters.

Sir R. Boothby: Is it not a fact that the Chairman of the British Medical Association has since withdrawn from his position and retracted the views he expressed as a member of the Advisory Committee? Further, is it the intention of the Minister not to have further consultations either with the British Medical Association, the Medical Research Council or anyone?

Mr. Macleod: The answer to the first part of the question is "Yes," and to the second part, "No."

Dr. Summerskill: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that to do as my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) suggested would be quite improper —it would in fact be trying to bring pressure to bear on the Standing Advisory Committee by the British Medical Association? The Standing Advisory Committee is representative of the highest medical thought in this country, and to bring pressure of that kind to bear upon it would be grossly unfair?

Mr. Macleod: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for that question. Perhaps I should make it clear that the Government believe they went to the right body to get this advice, and that this Committee is a body of the greatest distinction. It was on the basis of that advice that I advised my right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary.

Chiropody Service (Old-Age Pensioners)

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Health when he intends to introduce a chiropody service for old-age pensioners.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: My right hon. Friend is afraid he cannot say when this will be possible, but he does not think that any extension of the service should be limited to pensioners.

Dame Irene Ward: Will my hon. Friend see that that is conveyed to the Treasury that here is a way of helping small fixed income groups without imperilling the export trade or making undue demands on consumer goods? Will she see that the Treasury knows that I am awaiting some action in accordance with the undertaking the Treasury has given in respect of small income groups?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I think the hon. Lady has rather adroitly tried to put questions to two Departments into one question. I can assure her that we appreciate the desirability, if financial means are available, of endeavouring to introduce this service; but it has to be considered in order of priority with the many other claims.

Prescription Charge (Refund)

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the refund of payment for prescriptions is in practice limited to persons on National Assistance that this is causing complaint; and whether he will discuss ways and means of ensuring that other people living on small fixed incomes have equal treatment.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: No, Sir. The National Assistance Board will refund the prescription charge to any person who satisfies the Board that, on the Board's standards, payment of the charge would cause hardship.

Dame Irene Ward: Could my hon. Friend explain, so that the public, and especially people who have difficulty in finding shillings, can understand what standard the National Assistance Board applies in assessing hardship? Is it different from the standard which is applied when people apply for National Assistance? This is very difficult for the general public to understand, and it has got into a muddle. That is what everybody thinks.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I do not think it is a case of muddle. My hon. Friend's Question and, I hope, my reply will re-emphasise that those whose means do not come up to the standard universally laid down by the National Assistance Board are eligible to apply for the refund of any of the charges under the National Health Service. I think it will be agreed that it is necessary to have a common standard, and that of the National Assistance Board is the one which is applied in this case.

Dr. Summerskill: In view of the cost of administration, is not the only answer to the very desirable question by the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) to abolish the charge altogether?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: As three-quarters of the revenue from the charges result from legislation imposed by hon. Members opposite, it is interesting to see how their view changes when they do not have the responsibility for finding the money.

Dame Irene Ward: Can my hon. Friend list the standards in HANSARD, so that everybody can see them?

Mr. Chetwynd: Was it not the original idea that the 1s. should be refunded to all old-age pensioners and not simply to those who happen to be drawing National Assistance? Is that not where the difficulty arises at present?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: No, Sir. The original idea was that those who established that they were already receiving National Assistance would automatically be allowed the refund. Those who were not receiving National Assistance—and who therefore, in many cases, probably had other means—would have to establish their need of the refund to the National Assistance Board.

Uffculme Psychiatric Research Unit

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Health how many research workers are employed at the Uffculme Psychiatric Research Unit; how the unit is financed; and the estimated annual cost.

Mr. Iain Macleod: This unit, which is not yet fully in operation, is associated with All Saints Hospital and the Department of Experimental Psychology at the University of Birmingham. Both provide research workers and contribute to the cost. As the staff have other duties and the unit is not separately costed, I regret that the information asked for in the first and third parts of the Question is not available.

Mr. Robinson: In welcoming the establishment of this very valuable and interesting unit, may I ask whether the Minister is satisfied that the work of chemico-therapeutic research is being done on a sufficiently wide scale? Through his noble Friend the Lord President, would he not consider interesting perhaps the Medical Research Council in the project?

Mr. Macleod: I quite agree that this work is of very great importance. If the

hon. Member would like fuller information about it, perhaps he would come and talk to a senior member of my staff, who would be very glad to discuss it with him.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Without commenting on the value of this unit, may I ask the Minister to bear in mind that the work it is doing is of interest not only to my hon. Friend, but to the whole House, and that any information which he publishes about it should be given in the OFFICIAL REPORT? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the arrangements about the expense being shared between the university and the Ministry are sensible? Will he give an assurance that full public information will be given about the work that this unit is doing?

Mr. Macleod: If there is a desire for wider information about this unit, I will consider how best I can meet the need. This is a major piece of research, and I think it likely that it will come under the Medical Research Council as part of the reorganisation of clinical research, of which the hon. Member is aware.

Welfare Foods

Mrs. Butler: asked the Minister of Health what action he proposes to take to facilitate the distribution of cod liver oil and orange juice so that these welfare foods may be readily available to all the children under five years of age who need them.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: My right hon. Friend is making inquiries into the consumption and distribution of welfare foods, and when they are complete he will consider whether any further action is required.

Mrs. Butler: While thanking the hon. Lady for that reply, may I receive an assurance from her that the Minister realises that most of the people who collect these bottles of orange juice and cod liver oil are mothers accompanied by their small children, and that they cannot travel very long distances to collect these supplies of essential foods?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I appreciate what the hon. Lady has said, but difficulties have arisen in very few areas. I am glad to say that the uptake of orange juice, about which there was some concern earlier in the year, in the third quarter showed a very marked increase


to 9½04 million bottles, compared with 7½42 million in the second quarter and 5½99 million in the first quarter. That is a distinct improvement on the not-so-good figure earlier in the year, and it looks as if the difficulties have been ironed out in many areas. We have the matter under close review, particularly in those areas where the change-over does not seem to have been wholly satisfactory.

Suction Socket Limb

Mr. Simmons: asked the Minister of Health what progress is being made with the suction socket limb; how many amputees have tried it out; and how many are now in regular use by war-pensioners and civilian amputees.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The experimental stage ended nearly two years ago, and this type of limb is now available in all limb fitting centres. No separate records of its use are kept, so that the information asked for in the latter parts of the Question is not available.

Old People (Homes)

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: asked the Minister of Health whether he will appoint a committee to inquire into the well-being of old people in homes administered by the local and county authorities; and whether he will publish the results of such inquiry.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: No, Sir. Homes provided by local authorities under Part III of the National Assistance Act are inspected by my right hon. Friend's officers from time to time, and he is satisfied that the local authorities are alive to their responsibilities and that the residents in these homes receive a very high standard of care.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Does my hon. Friend not agree that the Curtis Committee does most valuable work for children in public care, and would she consult the Minister to see if a similar committee might be set up to look after the well-being of old people, because there are numbers who suffer from not very good feeding, and numbers of other elderly people who are subject to unnecessarily strict discipline in these homes?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: It is only fair to local authorities to say that during the

past years they have increased very considerably indeed not only the number of beds but also the standard of Part III accommodation for old people. Recognising the difficulty that there is a large demand, which they are not always able to meet, they have also done an enormous amount of work in improving the old P.A.I.S. being used for this purpose. It is not possible to give them up because of the demand by the large number of patients. It would be a very great reflection on the fine work the local authorities have done in difficult circumstances if any suggestion went out from this House that they are not doing their job fairly.

Mr. Snow: Is the hon. Lady aware that the success of the work she is talking about is due to the very intimate knowledge of the local authorities which are responsible for doing it? If she wants a first-class example of a humane attitude towards old people, perhaps she will come to Staffordshire.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I can assure the hon. Member I have been to very many dozens of old people's homes and can join in his tribute to their work, not only in Staffordshire, but in other counties.

Doctors and Nurses (Shortage)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health in what areas there is now a shortage of medical practitioners, district nurses and maternity nurses, respectively; and approximately how many serving in each of these categories are of Colonial or Commonwealth origin.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: My right hon. Friend will send the hon. Member lists of the areas where there are openings for general practitioners or vacancies for home nurses and midwives. No information is available as to the origins of those already in practice.

Mr. Sorensen: Can the hon. Lady say whether there is a decrease or an increase in the shortage? In view of the undoubted value of the colonial nurses, is any effort being made to recriut probationer nurses among the West Indians who are over here?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: More and more nurses are coming in from the Colonies, and a very excellent job they are doing. So far as the vacancies are concerned,


perhaps the hon. Gentleman would await the lists. He will find that most of them are in one or two parts of the country. I would rather not go into details until he has seen the lists. Perhaps he may then wish to put down a further Question.

Nurses (Furnished Accommodation Charges)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health, in view of the recent £25 per annum rise in pay to nurses and the probable increase in charge for furnished accommodation from £52 to £90 per annum, whether he will consider an adjustment of these figures to avoid nurses being financially worse off than they were before the nominal increase in salary.

Mr. Iain Macleod: No, Sir. The new maximum charges were agreed by the Whitley Council.

Mr. Sorensen: If the right hon. Gentleman agrees with these figures—and he has not disputed them—does he not think that it seems rather unfair to give a rise of £25 and then almost simultaneously increase the charges for accommodation by so large an amount? Is it not a Dutchman's rise?

Mr. Macleod: I do not think there is any connection between the two. As far as the charge for furnished accommodation is concerned, the £52 was a fixed amount, the £90 is a maximum, and I do not think it necessarily follows that there will be the consequences that the hon. Member foresees.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN (VISITS BY HER MAJESTY'S SHIPS)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what decisions have been made in respect of the visit of Her Majesty's ships to Spanish ports.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. R. H. Turton): As a result of a decision that units of the Royal Navy should resume visits to Spain, H.M.S. "Triumph" and H.M.S. "Venus" recently paid informal visits to Majorca and Barcelona. It is expected that, with the agreement of the Spanish Government, visits to other Spanish ports will take place next year.

Mr. Dodds: Is it not a fact that these visits were discontinued in 1954 as a result

of Spain's hostility to the Royal visit to Gibraltar? Will the right hon. Gentleman not bear in mind that Spain continues a ruthless economic blockade of Gibraltar? Can we be assured that we are not going to make these friendly gestures and allow Gibraltar to suffer?

Mr. Turton: It is quite true that these visits were discontinued as a result of manifestations of anti-British feeling. Now that the manifestations are no longer continuing—

Mr. Dodds: They are.

Mr. Turton: —the visits to foreign ports which form part of the normal programme of Her Majesty's ships are being continued, and it is to the advantage of Gibraltar that we should be on good rather than on bad terms with Spain.

Oral Answers to Questions — HUNGARY (DETAINED BRITISH NATIONALS)

Mr. Willey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many British nationals are detained by the Hungarian Government; and in what circumstances.

Mr. Turton: Of the 76 citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies known to be still in Hungary, three have received permission to leave, three persons of dual British and Hungarian nationality and one Cypriot who is solely British have applied for and are now awaiting exit permits. So far as I am aware, none of the others has applied to leave Hungary.

Mr. Willey: In view of the fact that a number of former employees of the Embassy are still detained, will Her Majesty's Government seek to take every opportunity that offers itself to seek their release and to end the present detention which, I believe, is in all cases without trial?

Mr. Turton: Where a person has dual nationality, Her Majesty's representative in Hungary has no standing formally to intervene.

Mr. Paget: Has the Cypriot gentleman shown any objection to exercising his rights as a British citizen?

Mr. Turton: No, Sir. Unfortunately, the Cypriot has been in trouble with the


Hungarian police and his application will be dealt with when that is cleared up. He is alleged to have uttered insulting remarks about a Hungarian Communist leader.

Mr. Nicholson: Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether Her Majesty's Government or the consuls there are quite certain that they have cognisance of the whereabouts of all British subjects behind the Iron Curtain?

Mr. Turton: No, Sir. Her Majesty's representatives can only have cognisance of those British subjects who notify them of their whereabouts. If British subjects do not wish Her Majesty's representatives to be acquainted of their whereabouts, it is not possible for Her Majesty's representatives to know where they are.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS

Nuclear Weapons

50. Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action has been taken on the proposal of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom that a group of scientists representing each of the countries on the United Nations Disarmament Sub-Committee should confer and produce a report on the possibilities of controlling nuclear weapons.

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps have been taken to hold a conference of scientists representing the members of the United Nations Committee on Disarmament to consider the scientific, as opposed to the political aspects of the international control of atomic weapons.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): No specific action has yet been taken on this proposal, which I made in the United Nations Sub-Committee on 7th October. It may be assumed, however, that the Disarmament Sub-Committee will revert to this subject when it meets again.

Mr. Henderson: Is it not a fact that the five Governments, including the Russian Government, represented on the Disarmament Sub-Committee, are agreed that unless the scientists can produce a working scheme for detecting stocks and accumulations of nuclear weapons, there

is little likelihood of a general disarmament agreement? If that is so, is it not of major importance that some action should be taken to deal with the problem?

Mr. Nutting: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his very helpful supplementary question. Unfortunately, it is not completely true to say that the five Governments are agreed on this matter. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will have seen that a variation of the proposal which I made in the Disarmament Sub-Committee is contained in a Resolution which was passed by the United Nations Assembly only a week ago, and that the Soviet Union voted against that proposal. We shall go on pegging away to try to get their agreement to some scheme of this kind.

Mr. de Freitas: Is it not of the greatest importance that the right hon. Gentleman should impress upon all the Governments concerned that it is only right that the scientists who invented the bomb should be let loose to try to find some means of detecting stores of the bomb? Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that there is no time to lose, and that we cannot grope around any more?

Mr. Nutting: That idea was very much in my mind when I made the proposal.

Mr. Warbey: When did Her Majesty's Government first discover that this difficulty of detecting stocks of nuclear weapons would make it impossible to have a comprehensive disarmament agreement?

Mr. Nutting: We had known for some time that it was not possible to be 100 per cent. sure that all nuclear weapons could be discovered under a comprehensive disarmament agreement, but on 10th May the Soviet Government said in terms that such a disarmament could not be made without the assurance that all nuclear weapons could be discovered and that it was impossible at the moment to discover them.

Mr. Gaitskell: May we take it that, whatever the position with regard to stocks of nuclear weapons, Her Majesty's Government have not given up hope of a general disarmament agreement on conventional weapons?

Mr. Nutting: We have not given up hope of a disarmament agreement on conventional weapons, and we also hope


ultimately to achieve a comprehensive agreement embracing nuclear weapons, but we cannot proceed to that until we have discovered means of control and have broken through this scientific barrier.

South-West Africa (Resolutions)

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how the British delegation voted on the 10 Resolutions adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on the subject of the administration of South-West Africa by the Government of the South African Union.

Mr. Nutting: The United Kingdom delegation abstained on six of the Resolutions and voted against four of them.

Mr. Brockway: May I welcome the right hon. Gentleman on his return from the United Nations, and ask him whether he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the actual terms of the Resolutions in favour of which our delegation voted, of those against which our delegation voted, and of those on which the delegation abstained?

Mr. Nutting: The hon. Member is wrong about the Answer. The United Kingdom abstained on six Resolutions and voted against four. We did not vote in favour of any. I will certainly consider the proposal which the hon. Member has made.

Kashmir (Mr. Khrushchev's Statement)

Mr. J. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the recent official pronouncement of Mr. Khrushchev concerning the position of Kashmir; and, as this question is at present before the Security Council, if he will instruct our representative there to raise the inadvisability of comment by Ministers of member States on matters which are sub judice before the Council.

Mr. Nutting: I have read the reports of Mr. Khrushchev's remarks. I agree that these remarks are hardly in keeping with the United Nations Resolutions on Kashmir, and I hope that this reply will make clear our view that statements should not be made which prejudge issues

of which the Security Council remains seized.

Mr. Hynd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the purpose of the Question was to ask him whether he would raise this matter in the Security Council, because it is desirable that there should be understanding between the parties in the Council about the procedure which would be followed when cases are before the Council? Will he raise the matter there?

Mr. Nutting: I will certainly consider the suggestion, but I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by a British representative raising it because, as the hon. Member probably will have seen, the Pakistani representative at the United Nations made a very strong statement on this question during the debate on disarmament.

Oral Answers to Questions — MIDDLE EAST (SUPPLY OF ARMS)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further consultations he has had with the other parties to the Tripartite Declaration of May, 1950, concerning the supply of arms to Egypt and other countries in the Middle East by Soviet satellite countries.

Mr. Nutting: Her Majesty's Government are in close and constant touch with the other parties to the Tripartite Declaration on this and all other aspects of the situation in the Middle East.

Mr. S. Silverman: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what confidence any nation concerned in the Tripartite Declaration can possibly have in it while anonymous spokesmen in his Department, for whom the Foreign Secretary is responsible, insist upon prejudging the merits of every frontier incident before the United Nations Commission can have time to investigate it or make a proper official report?

Mr. Nutting: I do not for a moment accept the implications in the hon. Member's supplementary question. If the hon. Member will wait for a few moments, he will find a perfectly good answer to Question No. 64 which he has on the Order Paper.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Can my right hon. Friend say whether arms in any appreciable quantity have already reached any of the States in question from the Soviet bloc?

Mr. Nutting: Not without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (DEBT REPAYMENTS)

Mr. J. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent the German Federal Republic is fulfilling her agreement concerning the repayment to the United Kingdom of the amounts in respect of unrequited imports after the war; in what form the repayments are being made; and what was the total amount of the original debt, the amount cleared to date, and the total now outstanding.

Mr. Turton: The German Federal Republic is fulfilling this agreement satisfactorily. Payments are being made in sterling. The original debt was £150 million, of which £.22½ million has already been paid.

Mr. Hynd: Are the payments made precisely in accordance with the agreement?

Mr. Turton: The agreement laid down that the payments should be made by 20 yearly instalments, each of £7½ million. Three instalments have been paid.

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS (EMIGRATION TO GREECE)

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make arrangements with the Greek Government for the immigration of Cypriots who express their desire to be under Greek rule.

Mr. Nutting: No, Sir. No impediment is placed by the Government of Cyprus in the way of Cypriots who wish to emigrate to Greece provided that they possess a passport valid for Greece and a passage ticket for Greece. The entry of aliens into Greece and their residence in that country are matters for the Greek Government.

Mr. Jeger: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would be a good thing if we were to pay the passages of those in

Cyprus who are so anxious to live under Greek rule and would like to go to Greece?

Mr. Nutting: I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not complain of the bill which he would receive.

MEMBERS (CONVERSATIONS WITH DEPARTMENTAL OFFICERS)

Mr. Gaitskell: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he will instruct Ministers that conversations between officers of their Department or Service and Members of the House are not to be made public except with the consent of the Member concerned.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend will consider the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion. I understand that the incident which apparently prompted this Question is likely to be debated on the Adjournment, and we cannot forestall this debate.
I am not prepared to commit my right hon. Friend to issuing a general instruction on the lines proposed without time for further reflection.

Mr. Gaitskell: While I am glad that the Prime Minister is to consider this question, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would not agree that the disclosure by the Colonial Secretary of a private conversation between the Attorney-General in Kenya and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) was, to say the least, improper and should not in future occur?

Mr. Butler: I think it would be best to let my right hon. Friend state his case in the debate on the Adjournment. I have not yet had an opportunity of discussing this with the Prime Minister. I have had some difficulty in contacting the Colonial Secretary before giving this answer, but I am satisfied from a communication which I have had with him that he will give his answer on this point in the course of the debate which will take place on the Adjournment, and I hope that that answer will be to the satisfaction of the House.

Mr. Gaitskell: We all regret the indisposition of the Prime Minister and understand the Chancellor's position. May I ask


the Chancellor whether he is satisfied that this matter can be raised on the Adjournment in the terms of the subject suggested by my hon. Friend? Can we take it that the Colonial Secretary will deal with it then? May we at least express the hope that he will take the opportunity of making an apology to my hon. Friend?

Mr. Butler: The right hon. Gentleman is on a good point, because there are two issues. First, there is the particular incident, and whatever my right hon. Friend may choose to say. I will draw the right hon. Gentleman's observations to his attention. The second point is the general issue, on which I think the Prime Minister should be given an opportunity to reflect. So I think that the particular incident may be able to be dealt with on the Adjournment. We shall go about it as quickly as possible to let the Prime Minister have an opportunity to consider the general issue.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman convey to the Prime Minister when considering the matter that, if this example is to be followed, Members of Parliament ought to be warned that, if they have private conversations with representatives and servants of Her Majesty's Government overseas, not only will their conversations be reported, but they may be used in this House by Ministers without prior notice to them?

Mr. Butler: I think that a matter of considerable importance to hon. Members is involved in this issue. It is also a general principle that it is quite a good thing, in these private matters, to obtain consent. There are certain quite important issues in respect of which we ought to have time to give a reply.

Mr. Elliot: Will my right hon. Friend also consider statements such as those recently made by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), disclosing a private conversation which had been held with an officer of the Ministry of Education and, apparently, was reported to this House without any communication with any hon. Member?

NEW MEMBER SWORN

Frederic Mackarness Bennett, esquire, for Torquay.

PRIVILEGE (COMPLAINTS)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I have to bring to your notice, Mr. Speaker, what are, in my respectful submission two prima facie cases of breach of Privilege. I have already brought one to your notice. I regret that time has not permitted me to bring the second one to your notice before now.
The first arises from the publication of a booklet by the British Medical Association entitled, "Homosexuality and Prostitution." The words of which I make complaint are contained in paragraph 28 of the publication, which reads as follows:
Other ways in which male homosexuals arouse the hostility of the public include their alleged tendency to place their loyalty to one another above their loyalty to the institution or government they serve, and, on the part of homosexuals in positions of authority, to give preferential treatment to homosexuals or to require homosexual subjection as expedient for promotion. The existence of practising homosexuals in the Church, Parliament, Civil Service, Forces, Press, radio, stage and other institutions constitutes a special problem.
I shall not detain you, Mr. Speaker, by quoting precedents which establish that the charging of Members with conduct rendering them unworthy to sit in Parliament is a breach of Privilege. In the present state of the law, whatever our views may be of possible future legislation in the matter, any assertion of the existence of practising homosexuals in Parliament must be regarded as serious.
On the difficult point of the timing of this submission, may I add that varying reports of the contents of this publication appeared, it is true, in the London morning papers last Friday. It was not possible, in the interests of complete accuracy, to make this submission at the opening of our proceedings that day without obtaining beforehand the actual booklet itself, which apparently was not generally available to the public at bookshops or bookstalls at the time when the varying Press reports appeared. It was, in fact, necessary for me to obtain a copy by application in person to the offices of the British Medical Association on Friday, which made it impossible for me to make this submission to you at the opening of our proceedings that day.
The second prima facie case of breach of Privilege arises—I apologise, Mr. Speaker, that I have not previously brought this to your notice—

Mr. Speaker: I think I had better deal with these matters one at a time. I do not know what the second case is. Perhaps I could deal with the first one first.
In these matters of Privilege, my duty is confined to seeing whether the conditions are fulfilled which are necessary to enable the hon. and gallant Member's complaint to get precedence over the Orders of the Day. One of these conditions is that the complaint must be made at the earliest possible moment. I have ascertained that the report of which the hon. and gallant Member complains was published on Wednesday, and extracts from it, including the passage complained of, certainly appeared in the Press on Friday morning. Therefore, by the rule, the hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to have produced it at the beginning of business on Friday in order to get precedence over the Orders of the Day. That does not, of course, in any way prevent him from putting down a Motion for the consideration of the House, which is the final guard of its own privileges.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I thank you for that reply. Mr. Speaker. Might I now draw your attention to what in my submission constitutes the second prima facie case of breach of Privilege, which, as I have already indicated, I have not previously submitted to you? In the circumstances, you may wish to reserve such Ruling as you may desire to make upon the matter.
The words complained of in this case appeared in the People yesterday, Sunday, 18th December. This is, therefore, the first opportunity I have had of bringing the matter to your notice. The headline reads:
Vice in Parliament.

and the words complained of read as follow:
Last night grave new disclosures were made by a famous doctor about vice in Parliament. They follow publication of a report on 'practising homosexuals' at Westminster. The doctors who reported last week on the existence of 'practising homosexuals' in Parliament knew of actual cases of homosexual members when they published their findings. This disclosure was made to the People yesterday by a well known psychiatrist who was a member of the special committee of the Council of the British Medical Association which issued the report.
In the light of the words complained of, which I have read from the issue of the People published yesterday, I trust, Mr. Speaker, that you will find it possible, either now or at a later date, without prejudicing the issue, to rule that a prima facie case of breach of Privilege has been properly established, and that I may therefore move, "That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges."

Extract from newspaper handed in.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member ought to have brought up the whole paper he has brought me only a piece of it. That being the case and as I have just heard of this and had no opportunity to study it, I will rule for the moment that the hon. and gallant Member has raised this particular matter at the earliest possible moment and I shall reserve what I have to say on it until tomorrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the Criminal Justice Administration Bill [Lords] and of the Committee on Criminal Justice Administration [Money] exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Crookshank.]

WHITE FISH INDUSTRY (SUBSIDIES)

3.42 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. D. Heathcoat Amory): I beg to move,
That the White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) No. 2 Scheme, 1955, dated 14th December, 1955, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th December, be approved.
I am very glad of the opportunity of saying something about this Scheme, in view of the anxiety expressed in some quarters lest the Government have changed their attitude or policy regarding the white fish subsidies. I assure the House that we have not done that.
I need not spend long explaining what the Scheme does, because, fortunately, we have many hon. Members on both sides of the House who are well acquainted with the affairs of the fishing industry, who take a great interest in them, and who have no doubt already studied the proposals.
This is the fourth statutory Scheme and continues the white fish subsidy, with certain alterations, for the period from 1st January, 1956, to 31st July. The present Scheme expires on 31st December and if this Scheme is not passed tonight, we should have no authority to pay any white fish subsidy after the end of this month.
The main changes proposed in the Scheme are these. The first concerns the payment to vessels not exceeding 70 feet in length. Those are vessels which we generally know as inshore vessels. At present, they get a flat rate subsidy of 10d. per stone of fish landed or 8d. for ungutted fish. Under this Scheme the rates are to be reduced to 8d. and 6d., respectively.
The second change applies to vessels between 70 feet and 140 feet in length. Those are vessels to which we generally refer as near and middle waters vessels. The flat rate subsidy for those vessels at present is 4d. per stone, or 3d. for ungutted fish; and the new rates proposed are 2d. and 1d., respectively. The third change is in the voyage payments for steam vessels. Those are to be substantially increased, and the new rates are

set out in Part I of the Schedule to the Scheme.
Motor vessels between 70 feet and 140 feet also receive voyage payments, but, except for certain minor changes, the rates are to be continued at the existing levels. The effect of all these changes is that the steam vessels will get more subsidy than at present and the motor vessels will get less. The justification for the increased subsidy for steam vessels is the higher rate of increased costs to which they have been subjected, mainly owing to the rise in the price of coal.
The total subsidy paid at the new rates will, of course, depend on the landings and on the price of fish during the seven months in question. It might, however, help the House to see the changes in perspective if I say that on the basis of actual landings of fish during the 12 months up to the end of October the result of the new rates would be an increase in the subsidy to the steam vessels of about £325,000 in a full year; for near and middle water motor vessels a decrease of about £40,000; and for inshore fishermen a decrease of about £135,000. Overall, they add up to an increase in the estimated cost of the subsidy of about £150,000.
It is important when we are considering these changes that we should bear in mind that the total cost of these subsidies is estimated to be going to be more and not less in the year to come than in the current year. The total cost in a full year at new rates we estimate will be £2½3 million.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: The right hon. Gentleman omitted the decrease in the prospective landings payments amounting to about £120,000 a year in the case of steam trawlers.

Mr. Amory: No. In my calculations I allowed for that. I will check my calculations in view of what the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has said and, if I am wrong, I will ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to say so at the end of the debate; but I believe that I have allowed for that in full.
Before explaining the economic background against which our decisions have been taken, I should like to say a word about the history—

Mr. Mitchison: I am sorry to interrupt, but on Thursday, in answer to a Question, the Minister's last sentence was:
The landings payment to steam vessels will be reduced by £120,000 and their voyage payments increased by £330,000."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1955; Vol. 547. c. 223.]
He gave us the £330,000 figure, but not the other.

Mr. Amory: I am sorry. I agree with the hon. and learned Member that the figures do not seem to be entirely clear. Perhaps the answer is that the wording is a little ambiguous. I think that the answer is a gross increase in the voyage payments to the steam vessels is £325,000 plus the reduction in the landing prices. I will check on that. Substantially, what I say is true. I think that the words are capable of two interpretations. The figure I gave on Thursday was for England and Wales and the figures I am now giving are for the United Kingdom. When hon. Members later see the figures for middle sea fishing, they will see that there is no muddle. Hon. Members will recollect that the scheme of subsidies started in 1950 as a temporary measure.

Mr. Mitchison: I am sorry to interrupt again, but we might as well get this straight. Exactly the same Question was asked of the Secretary of State for Scotland, and his Answer was:
Flat rate payments for steam vessels are expected to be reduced by approximately £107,000 and voyage payments increased by about £220,000."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1955; Vol. 547, c. 224.]
How those figures make the £330,000 which the Minister has mentioned I do not understand.

Mr. Amory: As soon as I have finished my speech I will do some sums and tell the hon. and learned Gentleman the result. In the meantime, the figure I want to leave with hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite is one of a net increase to the coal burners of the figure I have given—£325,000.
In 1950, as a temporary measure, necessary owing to a sudden fall in the prices of fish, subsidies were started. Originally, they ran for six months and then they were extended again and again, always for short periods, until the 1953 Act which placed the matter on a firmer basis. The subsidy provisions of that Act are part of a composite policy aimed

at establishing an independent and healthy industry by improving both the fisheries and the fishing vessels.
The Government have taken a leading part in international conservation measures which, we hope, are improving the stock of fish. Also, the grants and loans under the Act have been producing a steady replacement of old boats by new ones. The subsidy is there to help the fishermen tide over the period while these other measures of conservation and rebuilding are achieving their effect.
The Act leaves no ground for believing that the Government contemplated at that time the necessity for a permanent subsidy. There were limits set on the amount of money which would be available both for rebuilding and for subsidies, and also a limit on the period for rebuilding during which proposals could be approved and the subsidy paid.
It is against that general background that we have given very careful consideration to the present economic circumstances of the industry. It has been suggested that our action has been mainly determined by the precise statutory limits set by the Act. That is not so. The alterations included in this Scheme are, on the evidence we have, completely justified by the current economic facts of the industry in the light of the principles of the Act to which I have referred.
For the near and middle water vessels we have had regularly from the industry complete trading accounts each spring. We have also collected for the inshore section of the industry, through our fisheries officers, the best information we have been able to obtain about the earnings of the inshore fishermen.
I should like to deal first with the steam vessels. The facts show a very substantial improvement in 1954, amounting to £622 net a vessel, despite the substantial increase in the price of coal during that year. The steam vessels represent a section of the industry where the problems are perhaps most intractable, as these vessels are, on the average, very old ones indeed. The improvement to which I have referred has been due primarily to an increase in earnings amounting on the average to about £2,000 a vessel. That has resulted from the efforts of the fishermen, on the one hand, and from the better prices obtained from the market on the other.
The evidence is that this improvement has, over all, continued throughout the current year, 1955. The summer of 1954 was cool, and that perhaps stimulated a demand for fish and raised prices; but it is encouraging that in the quite different conditions of this year prices in England and Wales have been maintained in face of increased supplies, and earnings have continued to improve. In Scotland, prices have fallen appreciably this year, but up to September, when there was a strike in Aberdeen, the landing in Scotland increased by 6 per cent., and total earnings were maintained at the level of the previous year, 1954. But for the substantial increase in costs which have occurred during the present year for the coal burners, it would have been our duty to have reduced the subsidy.
Unfortunately, the costs of the steam vessels have continued to rise, and it is estimated that the increased cost of coal alone this year may add about £600,000 a year to the costs of the steam fleet. We recognise that if the steam vessels are to be kept in operation it is necessary to increase the subsidy to them. In order to give aid where it is most needed we propose to reduce the flat rate, as I have said, from 4d. to 2d. per stone, and to increase the voyage payments which are a kind of insurance against particularly bad trips, by a substantially greater amount. It is estimated that the subsidy to be paid to the steam fleet will be increased by a net amount of £325,000.
Hon. Members may say, "But are not you leaving many steam vessels, when you have done that, with a net loss as shown by their accounts?" The answer is that the white fish subsidy was never intended to indemnify all vessels against making losses. The older steam vessels, as hon. Members will agree, are most of them extremely uneconomic, and we could not visualise a permanent subsidy which would turn them permanently into an economic proposition.
Their results vary enormously one from the other. For 1954, 169 boats showed profits averaging just over £1,500 a vessel, and 383 boats lost on average over £2,000 a vessel. These results were struck after allowing almost £1,000 a boat for depreciation, whereas in most instances these old boats were in fact written off many years ago. Certain other expenses also are charged which, in some instances,

would have the effect of turning a cash profit into a book loss. What would be quite unjustified would be to subsidise the old, uneconomic boats to the point where the incentive to replace would be removed. What is important is that, taking the United Kingdom over all, the net results have improved substantially during the past two years.
I turn to the motor vessels of 70 feet to 140 feet; they are the near and middle water vessels. The improvement in net earnings for 1954 compared with 1953 amounted to an average of £860 a vessel. I do not say that in all cases the level of profits that we should like to see as a reward for the enterprise of the owners in re-equipping their fleet has, in fact, been realised.
But it would be disappointing, and I think contrary to the aim and purpose of the Act which the House endorsed in 1953, if these modern vessels had to depend on a subsidy as a permanent feature in their earnings. If we thought that, I think it would cast a doubt on the soundness of the policy, which we believe to be sound, of giving grants for these new vehicles. We believe that, with an up-to-date fleet, with improved catches which should result from the international measures in which we are taking a leading part, and given the usual enterprise which has always been shown by its members, the position of the industry should continue to improve.
Here again, the evidence shows that the usual improvement has been experienced so far since the end of 1954, taking the motor fleet as a while. I am sure that the House will find very encouraging, as we do, that so far under the Act, loans and grants have been approved for 101 near and middle water vessels, and 218 inshore boats, and a further number of them, between 30 and 40, are at present under consideration. The yards are full of work, and, in fact, the objects of the Act seem to be working out. At the moment, we are looking sympathetically at the possibility of extending grants to the conversion of boats from steam to oil in appropriate cases.
Before I leave fie near and middle water vessels, I wish to emphasise that the reduction in the landing subsidy means an average decrease in the total subsidy of about 15 per cent., or 2 per cent. on the gross earnings of that section of the


industry. This reduction which we are proposing is substantially less than the improvement which has taken place in net earnings in the past two years, after allowing in full for increased charges.

Mr. James Callaghan: As, before a subsidy is given, accounts have to be produced by these owners, may I ask the Minister why he did not have the exact figures before he produced the first Scheme? What has led to this alteration in his mind in the space of the last fortnight?

Mr. Amory: There has been no alteration in the Scheme dealing with the section of the industry for which accounts are received.
I wish to turn now, because I think it relevant, to the question put by the hon. Gentleman, from the near and middle water to the inshore vessels. These are those under 70 feet in length. I realise there is a feeling in some quarters that we reached a conclusion here on inadequate data about the financial results of this section of the industry. I wish to stress that we made the fullest use we could of the best information we have been able to obtain. In the case of the near and middle water vessels, as I have said, we get accounts of the results of each vessel each year, and that gives us full information.
But with the inshore fisheries we are not so fortunately placed. We know the gross earnings fairly accurately, but we receive no comprehensive figures of the expenses from the industry and we have to make the best estimate we can on average experiences. I wish to emphasise, and I think hon. Members will agree with me, that when we come to the inshore boats there are very wide variations indeed between the experience of one port and another and the experience of different vessels operating from the same port.
Representations referring to these wide variations which we received after the announcement of these proposals—and a number of instances have been given—caused us to look again at our computations, with the result that we decided to give a further benefit of the doubt to the inshore fishermen and reduce the cut proposed. On the average, we believe that the original proposals which involved, in the case of the inshore fisheries—

Mr. Mitchison: Before the right hon. Gentleman deals with that, may I ask whether we are to understand that that is the reason he issued one Scheme, withdrew it, and issued another?

Mr. Amory: Yes, if the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to finish my sentence, I will tell him.
On average, we believe that the original proposals though they involved a higher percentage cut of subsidy for the inshore fisheries than for the near and middle water section, were, in fact, justified. But it was a higher percentage cut. We have admitted all along that in the case of the inshore fisheries our information is less complete—because we do not get audited accounts of each vessel—and, therefore, the proposed cuts might well have borne hardly on some individuals. Taking those things into consideration, the representations that came to us from the inshore fishermen led us to decide to give a further benefit of the doubt to them in this case and limit the cut to the same amount of percentage as applied to other sections of the industry.

Mr. Mitchison: So far as Scotland is concerned, this information was given to the Secretary of State for Scotland before the Scheme was issued on 1st December. I wish to know what further information was obtained between the two dates.

Mr. Amory: As regards Scotland, I will leave my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary to give details of what happened. Naturally, the information which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland received from the inshore fishing industry was passed on to my Department. It does not amount to what I have referred to previously as comprehensive information.

Mr. Callaghan: With respect, may I ask whether the Joint Under-Secretary will reply to the debate?

Mr. Amory: Mr. Amory indicated assent.

Mr. Callaghan: Then may I put it to the Minister that this is an unfair way to treat the House? We shall have no way at all of examining what the Joint Under-Secretary has to say in reply to the very pertinent point put by my hon. and learned Friend. If the Government have changed their minds in a fortnight—I do not deny that there may have been good


reason for the Minister presenting the Scheme—should not the right hon. Gentleman reply, and not unload it on to the Joint Under-Secretary, leaving him to tell us the answer to my hon. and learned Friend's question.

Mr. Amory: I have answered the question—

Mr. Callaghan: The Government have made a mess of this. We all know it, and we are entitled to ask why they made the mess. The Minister has this question to answer. My hon. and learned Friend says that all the figures, information and data were given to the Minister before he made his first Scheme. Is that so? If not, what further information and data has the right hon. Gentleman since received which justified him in changing his mind?

Mr. Amory: The answer to the first part of the question is that the information which came into the Scottish Office about the inshore fishermen was what might be called the result of samples. It was not comprehensive information which could be compared with the amount of information we obtained about the near and middle waters. Information we have had since from various sections of the inshore fishermen called attention to the effect of these cuts and the results on particular ports and particular types of vessels. It is this information, which was supplementary to what we had before, which led us to believe—as the percentage of the proposed cut on inshore fishermen would be higher than on the remainder of the industry—that we should be justified in mitigating the effect in the way we have done.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Mr. Hector Hughes (Aberdeen, North) rose—

Mr. Mitchison: The right hon. Gentleman was speaking for England and Scotland. I am asking what further information was obtained about Scottish inshore fishermen between 1st December and 14th December to justify the excellent change, so far as it went, which was made by the second Scheme? May I tell the right hon. Gentleman beforehand that my information, which I have taken some trouble to obtain, is that the information from local people was sent to the Minister of State, Scottish Office, as he asked for

it, before, and not after, the first Scheme was made.

Mr. Amory: I never said that the information was received from Scotland after the Scheme was made. The point I was making was that the written information on the trading results of the Scottish inshore vessels consisted of samples and not comprehensive statements covering the whole industry. The information which has come in otherwise has come from various quarters.

Mr. Callaghan: Mr. Callaghan rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister has been very much interrupted in presenting this complicated Scheme. We are not in Committee. There will be plenty of opportunity, if hon. Members keep their speeches to a reasonable length, for every point of view to be expressed; and it is far more convenient if it is done by way of speeches.

Mr. Hughes: Mr. Hughes rose—

Mr. Callaghan: On a point of order. The position is that the Government have introduced two Schemes on the same subject within less than a fortnight, one of which drastically amends the other. We have been told that we are not to get a detailed explanation why the change was made until the Joint Under-Secretary of State concludes the debate. There will then be no opportunity for us to deal with the points in detail.
I understood from the Joint Under-Secretary, who nodded, that he would wind up the debate. If he is to wind up the debate, and if, as the Minister said, he will deal with the question in detail, we shall be placed in a difficulty. I agree that this makes for more interruptions than would be desirable on this matter, but that is the position. It would be of great assistance to the House and would save us from trying to interrupt the Minister if he would tell us what further information he has had since 1st December which has enabled him to reach this much more satisfactory conclusion.

Mr. Amory: I have already given the hon. Member that information. As I have said, we have had illustrations of what the proposed cuts would have amounted to in the case of particular vessels in particular ports. After considering that further information, we have


decided, rightly or wrongly, to give the further benefit of the doubt to the inshore fishermen, bearing in mind that the percentage cuts proposed to be made on them were higher than for the rest of the industry.

Mr. Hughes: On a point of order. I have twice risen to intervene. Once the Minister politely gave way and my place was taken by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) from the Front Bench. On a second occasion I rose, and again the Front Bench intervened. As I represent a fishing constituency, surely I am entitled to put a point to the Minister and to ask for a polite reply.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member must argue that matter out with the hon. Gentlemen on his own Front Bench. It is not a matter which I can control. I was putting the general point to the House that we should make far better progress if hon. Members allowed speeches to be delivered and made points of criticism later.

Mr. Hughes: Further to that point of order. I am sorry to press the point and I accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, as I always do, but when I rose to put my first point and asked the Minister to give way, he politely did so; but before I could ask the question which I rose to ask, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering put a question. That happened a second time, too, when my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) rose.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that; that is what the hon. and learned Gentleman said the first time. He has repeated his complaint. I have dealt with it as well as I can. If the hon. and learned Gentleman is patient and allows the debate to proceed, I hope he will have an opportunity later to catch my eye on this matter. Then, if there is time, he can put his points, but we had better get on with the debate and not have so many interruptions.

Mr. Amory: In the case of inshore fisheries, the evidence shows that there has been an improvement during 1954 and, so far, during 1955. The catch on which the subsidy is based increased over those two years by 20 per cent. In addition, higher average prices by about

6 per cent. have been realised over the whole country. These are on the earnings for white fish. In addition, some inshore fishermen in some areas have enjoyed a considerable improvement in their earnings from shell fish. That applies only to some fishermen in some areas.
Taking the increase in gross earnings over the past two years and applying the best estimates we have been able to make of increased costs, leads to the definite conclusion that the average net earnings have improved more than sufficiently to justify the proposed reduction in the subsidy, which, in the case of the inshore fishermen, amounts to about 2½ per cent. of their gross earnings.
The new Scheme is intended to cover the period 1st January to 31st July. In the normal way we shall be receiving the trading accounts for the near and middle water vessels in February and March for the year which is shortly to end. I hope that when we collect them we shall also receive improved information and fuller information about the fortunes of the inshore fishermen. After getting that information we shall be bringing to the House another new scheme within six months.
I want to deal with a view which I have heard expressed in some quarters that we have rushed these changes without sufficient consultation. I will deal with this as quickly as I can, giving the main dates. Our officials met the British Trawlers Federation and the Aberdeen Association on 8th July and told them that but for the big increase in the price of coal, which had been announced on the same day, we should have had to make a cut of 2d. in the landing subsidy.
The scheme was then continued to enable us to work out the effects of the higher coal prices. On 9th November these organisations were sent our new proposals with the justification for them. On 24th November the Secretary of State for Scotland and I saw the representatives of those bodies and subsequently another meeting was held with our officials. The Scheme was then made, on 6th December. There has been no change for the near and middle water fisheries in the Scheme since then.
I will deal next with the inshore fishermen. On 11th November the Fisheries Organisation Society and the Federation of English and Welsh Inshore Fishermen


were informed of our proposal and asked whether they would like a meeting. A copy was also sent to the Association of Sea Fish Authorities. We received written representations from the Society and representations from the Federation through the White Fish Authority. The Federation did not want a meeting. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary saw a delegation from the Society on 8th December. In Scotland a meeting was held, and, as I have said, the figures were presented.
I am a strong believer in prior consultation, within the limits feasible and appropriate, before the Government take a policy decision, and if the arrangements which we have for consultation with each section of the industry can be further improved, particularly with the inshore fishermen's organisations, I am very anxious to see it done.
Turning to the future, first we are anxious to do everything we possibly can to make sure that we get every bit of relevant information and all the relevant figures which the industry can give us to enable us to compute their results accurately and fairly. I should be very unhappy indeed if I thought the industry had a feeling that we had neglected any possible source of reliable information. So if the inshore fishermen's organisations believe that they can supply us with useful figures which we have not got at present, the Secretary of State and I will be glad to arrange for discussions to be started straight away. I certainly undertake that the Secretary of State and I will give the fullest consideration to any further information that may be made available to us. Should that further information show that the conclusions upon which this Scheme is based have been too optimistic in any way, we should clearly have to take that fact into consideration when we come to the next Scheme in a few months' time.
In any case, next year we shall have to start thinking about the future in relation to the general objectives of the White Fish and Herring Industries Act, 1953, because by this time next year the £7½million authorised under the Scheme will have been used up and we shall have to ask Parliament for an Order for the further £2½million permitted under that Act. I would remind hon. Members of

the object of that Act. Its purpose was to help to improve both the fisheries and the fishing fleet; to insure an efficient, prosperous and independent industry. That aim is being realised. Encouraging progress has already been made in the modernisation of the fleet, and we must see that continuing steady progress takes place until that goal is reached.
The principle of the Act is clear and sound. Whether the limits which were fixed in 1953 will be found to be the right ones—that is to say, a total of £10 million, and March, 1958, as the terminating date—remains to be seen, but we shall soon have to take stock and look ahead to see how best these objectives can be secured. I am not prejudging that issue, but I can assure the House that it is the Government's intention to see that the purposes of the Act are achieved, and we shall not have closed minds about the steps that the future may call for.
I apologise for detaining the House rather longer than I had intended, but I wanted to explain that the Government have not changed their attitude to the principles of the Act, or their policies in giving effect to them. I wanted, too, to ensure that hon. Members were informed fully as to the reasons why we are satisfied, upon the best evidence that we have been able to obtain, that the proposed changes are reasonable and fair, and in accord with the spirit of the Act. The fishing industry is doing a first-rate job by the country. It is grappling energetically with the current and ever-changing problems of the industry, and it deserves prosperity. We mean to do everything we can to see that it gets it. We shall, by following and applying the sound principles of the Act of 1953, continue our efforts to help the industry in the progress it is achieving in steadily improving its efficiency and prosperity. I commend the Scheme to the House.

4.24 p.m.

Mr. Edward Evans: When the House last discussed fishing, on 25th July last, we were considering the Scheme which the present Scheme—or, perhaps I should say, the series of Schemes—is now designed to displace. At that time hon. Members were very much circumscribed by the rules of order. I believe that the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) made an urgent


plea to the Government to give hon. Members who were interested an opportunity to debate the whole scope of the industry.
All through this year we have been skirting the periphery of the rules of order, some of us with some success, but I want to reiterate the feeling of those of us who have the interests of this industry at heart that it is time that we had an opportunity to debate the industry in all its aspects. It is a great pity that by the rules of order much of what hon. Members on both sides of the House would like to say cannot possibly be said, because we know that you, Mr. Speaker, would not allow it.
I do not propose to take a long time over my speech, because many other hon. Members are desirous of making contributions. On behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends, however, I must express the greatest disappointment with the statement of the Minister, plausible—although muddled—as it was, that the Government are to persist in putting this Scheme through the House. We believe that it is unfair, that it hits the industry at a time when it is least resilient, and we hope that before long the Government will see the error of their ways, so that, even if we cannot get this Scheme revoked tonight, it will not be long before a better one is introduced.
The Minister has touched upon the history of subsidies for fishing. Hon. Members on this side of the House take pride in the fact that we realised the great difficulty which the industry was in in 1950, when we introduced subsidies. Under the operation of those subsidies, from July, 1950, until now about £8½million has been spent. A new Bill in 1953 followed the principles laid down by the Labour Government and has already provided for subsidies of £7½million which the Minister informs us will run out by next year. That can be increased to £10 million, of which £5 million has already been spent.
These subsidies have been of inestimable value to the industry. Their object was to give an incentive to fishermen to keep their ships at sea. In 1950, conditions were so bad that the prospect of keeping vessels at sea was, in a great many cases, the most difficult task the industry could face. We also had to compete

with agricultural products which were then coming in in a greater variety and quantity, and which were themselves very highly subsidised. I know that the agricultural industry does not like the word "subsidy," but I think that it is a fair description. Then, we wanted very much to encourage a switch-over from steam vessels to the new dieselengined motor vessels, which have proved such a great success and which the Minister has mentioned today.
How far have we been successful in that endeavour? In some ports we have been very successful. In my own port of Lowestoft—and I speak with some knowledge of it—there are now 82 motor vessels and only 19 steam vessels. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) cannot speak of such good results. Aberdeen has only 72 motor vessels, compared to 180 steam vessels. But the fleet has been maintained, and fishermen get a decent standard of living and some reward for their efforts.
I want to add my protest to those received by the Minister at the hurry in which this Scheme has been produced. It is no use the Minister saying that he was having the consultations last July. I will refer to that in a moment. This is the 19th December, and the new Scheme comes in on 1st January—that is hardly a fortnight. Surely this Scheme ought to have been before Parliament for a much longer time, and this second Scheme is a contradiction of the first. On 25th July, I congratulated the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on the introduction of that Scheme in these words:
I am happy to be able to congratulate the Government on following so assiduously the pattern of the schemes laid by the Labour Government when they introduced these subsidies, which have a most beneficial effect on near-shore and inshore fishing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th July, 1955; Vol. 544, c. 883.]
I cannot do that today. I only wish that it were my duty on behalf of the Opposition to congratulate the Minister, but I am afraid that my duty is to tell him plainly that he has failed to realise the real position of the fishing industry today and by this cruel, ill-timed cut in the subsidies he has performed a very great disservice to the industry. I thought then that the idea of terminating the Scheme on 31st December was a lack of prevision on the part of the Government.


I misjudged them; I did them an injustice. It was a real prevision, but it was the wrong sort. They kept the right to terminate on 31st December up their sleeves in order that they could implement these cuts straightaway on 1st January.
It is clear that the aim of the Government, as laid down by the Act, is to taper off the subsidy payments so that they will disappear entirely by 31st March, 1958. One cannot complain about that if they take a realistic view of the matter, but when the global figure of £7½million was decided on in 1953, with the provision that it could be raised to £10 million, it was envisaged then that prices would fall. That was the idea. The £7½million was worked out, and it was thought that after, let us say, five years, when the Scheme came to an end, five years of Tory rule would mean that prices generally would fall and the industry could take in its stride the tapering off so that, in the end, we could do away with subsidies. But not only have prices failed to fall; they have actually risen.
Periodically Questions are asked in the House about the rise in cost of living, and every time we find that the index figure goes up the cost of living of ordinary people goes up, added to which we have the latest imposition by the Government of Purchase Tax, which not only affects the crews in their purchases of domestic things, such as clothing, but many pieces of gear as well.
Mr. Croft Baker, President of the British Trawlers Federation, said a week ago:
Conditions are different now. Costs of near and middle water vessels have risen by £1 million in the last few months.
Let me give the House a few items of increased expenditure—crews' wages, 10 per cent., which means 10s. 6d. per man per week; fitters, weekly wage increased from £9 2s. 6d. to £11 1s.; shipwrights, weekly wage increased from £9 12s. 6d. to £11 1s.; platers, weekly wage increased from £12 5s. to £14 15s.; sheet metal workers, ships' riggers and electricians, weekly wages increased by 11s. per week.
It is estimated that repair costs have increased by 30s. for every day a trawler spends at sea. Dock dues have been increased by 21 per cent., fuel oil has been increased by over 30s. per day at sea. All spare parts, of which a good supply

is necessary to operate diesel vessels, have been increased in cost. The Bank Rate increase of 1 per cent. on a 100-foot motor trawler costing £70,000 means that the owners have to pay £700 a year in increased loan charges. These are vital figures, and I should like to ask the Minister whether these increases were taken into account when it was decided to cut the subsidies, and whether all these increased costs were measured up against the so-called higher prosperity.
If that is not enough, I would point out that there have been three successive rises in the White Fish Authority's interest on loans, on 19th August, 2nd September and 7th September. The new rates of interest on loans for not more than five years are 4¿ per cent., and on loans for more than five years 5¼ per cent. There is also the Bank Rate increase of 1 per cent. This means that a 100-foot trawler has to pay increased loan charges of over £700 a year. The tightening of credits makes it more difficult to raise loans in the market.
I put that point, on 21st July, to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, and it did not seem to worry him at all. He brushed the whole thing aside, as if money and capital charges had no effect whatever on costings, and he said:
The small man and the rate of interest on loans was referred to by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans). That point was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short). I do not know. I can only say that the rates of interest for the loans that are given to fishermen have not yet been brought to my notice as a matter of complaint."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th July, 1955; Vol. 544, c. 939.]
If they have not been brought to his notice, I am doing so at this moment. I hope that the Government will take note of the tremendous charges imposed on the industry for the mere use of money in building and repairing its vessels.
I do not propose to touch on inshore fishing today, because I know that many of my hon. Friends on this side and hon. Members opposite want to deploy arguments about inshore fishing. At the same time, in spite of what the Minister said, I want to contradict him concerning the catches in the southern North Sea affecting near and middle water fishing. It was pointed out that the catches had not substantially increased. In fact, the catch from the southern North Sea for the first


nine months of this year totalled 102,931 cwt. as against 113,226 cwt. for the same period in 1954. The catch per day at sea at Lowestoft shows a considerable decrease this year, particularly the catches of the smaller motor trawlers under 90 ft.
I do not know whether the Minister has resources at his disposal to get figures to bolster up his case for cutting the subsidy, but figures are derived from the men who actually go to sea. These are the fellows who catch the fish, and they surely ought to know something about it. So alarmed has the industry become by these rumours of tapering off and decreases in subsidies that they naturally put the strongest possible case to the Minister. Instead of a reduction, they asked for an increase of £1½ million more per year to meet increased costs. That was before the last Scheme. I am talking about the Scheme before the one issued a fortnight ago.
In this period of difficulty, the Minister sees fit to give the industry a rebuff, a very nasty clout. This is not the Scheme of a Minister who has the interest of fishermen at heart. This Scheme is a Treasury document. It reeks of it. I almost said "stinks of it." The right hon. Gentleman has withdrawn his first Scheme, in view of the pressure which came from hon. Members on all sides of the House, and particularly from his own back benchers, who are, after all, very knowledgeable on this subject. There is no gainsaying that. The big volume of opinion he has behind him ought to have made him not only reconsider the stonage part of the Scheme, but the whole lot, and take it back altogether.
We remember how, at the beginning of the year, the National Farmers' Union reacted against the Government's proposed alteration in subsidies for them, and how the Chancellor of the Exchequer was called in to placate the farmers. The fishing industry might not be so powerful as the agricultural industry, but the Chancellor can do for fishing what he did for agriculture. The two industries run parallel and are subject to the same fluctuations. They are the victims of climatic conditions and in both industries men get right down to Nature. I should have thought that the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland

would have put up a bigger fight for this industry than they have done, and would not have taken so submissively what the Chancellor of the Exchequer decided that they should do.
It is customary in these debates to pay a tribute to the daring and heroism of the fisherman when his ship meets disaster. This has been a sad year for the fishing industry, and for my own part of Lowestoft, where we have lost three trawlers and many brave men. It is usual, too, to talk of the strategic importance of the fishing fleet and of its work in wartime. We are fully aware of that. We have the beautiful national memorial to those who lost their lives in the small patrol boats manned chiefly by fishermen, and whose burial place is the North Sea. We are constantly deploring the difficulty in retaining and recruiting crews.
To point to the beautiful memorial to the ships lost in the North Sea is, however, no answer to the demands of the fishermen now. We know very well that during the last few years, very largely because of the subsidy, the fishermen have had an incentive. The actual working fisherman shares in the subsidy. When the Government reduce the subsidy they reduce the rewards paid to our working fishermen and thus they hinder recruitment. We have the greatest difficulty in manning our trawlers. I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if I am taking rather longer with my speech than I intended to take, but I must attempt to deploy the case.
I tried in the debate on 25th July and earlier on a point of order at Question Time to discover what the Government proposed to do to implement their promises to help to set off the increased price of coal. The answer seemed to be—for like the Minister's speech today it was not very clear—that some arrangement would be made in the future. The proposals have now come to light. We see them embodied in the new schedules for steam trawlers, six months after I tabled that Parliamentary Question. The price of coal has gone up steadily in the last six months. We pressed for help, but never, in our wildest dreams, did we imagine that the increase had to be paid for by other sections of the industry, the inshore, and the near and middle water, motor vessels. It is a fantastic situation that


one section of the industry should be asked to bolster up another section of the industry.

Mr. Amory: There is nothing like that about it whatever. In my speech I tried to make it clear that the changes in the landing subsidy stand on their own feet quite distinct from the voyage payments.

Mr. Evans: I do not think that the Minister's intervention will persuade many hon. Members on either side of the House. Obviously, there was a part of the proposals of the Minister in which he suggested some payment to the steam drifters which operate in the North Sea. Good luck to them, but the middle water and inshore fishermen have to bear the brunt of it. That is a monstrous solution to the problem. It is the very negation of a progressive subsidy policy. I am not against the increased grant to the steamers, but I am strongly opposed to that grant being made at the expense of the more progressive elements and in most cases by those least able to afford it.

Mr. Amory: I shall not interrupt the hon. Gentleman more than once again. I must remind him of what I said in my speech. In July, quite apart from the increase in the price of coal, we warned the trawler owners when my officials saw them that a cut of 2d. in the landing subsidy would be required on the basis of the accounts we had seen.

Mr. Evans: When we look at the results, we see that precisely what I said happened. We want incentives to encourage the industry to change from the old-fashioned, costly, unhygienic and difficult old vessels to modern motor ships. This scheme announced by the Minister will maintain those old ships. It is not an incentive to the owner of an old-fashioned ship to change if he is to be subsidised at the expense of the owner of a modern vessel. Naturally, the application of the new rates means a loss of several hundreds of pounds a year on motor vessels fishing from southern ports, of which my own port of Lowestoft is one.
The Government must remember that not long ago British vessels fishing in the near and middle waters—I wonder whether this point has been taken into account by the Government—were compelled by regulation to acquire new nets

of smaller mesh to comply with the terms of the International Convention on Over-fishing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Larger mesh."] I beg pardon of the House. It was a larger mesh, of course. This was not a popular operation. Nothing that makes a fisherman spend money is popular. It was very costly. It became very irksome when we saw foreign vessels openly flouting the Convention to which their Governments had been parties. This change was made by an Order of the Minister, but no compensation in any way was paid to the owners for obsolete nets, although the owners were liable to heavy fines if they were caught contravening the regulations.
This change has been extremely costly for almost every vessel going out of every port in this country. This is one of the factors that ought to be taken into account. Inshore fishermen have made the strongest representations to the Minister against the new cuts. I am sure that in the course of the debate a great many hon. Members will put the case for them. We claim that if it had not been for the subsidy, the 1954 fishing season would not have cleared costs.
One question further to the Minister before I sit down is this: is it proposed to enforce the proposal that vessels should not qualify for subsidy on any day when six hours' fishing has not been performed? I hope that the Minister will let us have an answer to that question.
We feel bound to oppose this scheme as being against the best interests of the industry in general. It is proposed in a period of rising prices. It makes an economic unbalance in placing the burden of the cuts on those least able to bear it. It induces a marked disincentive towards progress. I very much hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House who have been vocal in their condemnation in the cuts will follow us into the Lobby to vote against them.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Duthie: It must have become clear to each hon. Member, and to all those of the public who are identified with the fishing industry in general and the white fish industry in particular, that a subsidy is necessary. Were the subsidy to be abolished and the fishermen to insist on the extra equivalent being paid at the quayside, its effect would be multiplied several times before the fish reached


the fishmonger's slab. It being accepted that a subsidy is necessary, the question is—how much?
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his assurance that, with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, he will take steps to obtain all the relevant information concerning the inshore fishing industry. I hope that that will be done soon so as to revise the subsidy at a date much earlier than July next; that my right hon. Friend in revising the scheme, will bring in something more in keeping with the actual facts. I had intended this afternoon to oppose this scheme, but having had that assurance I will not vote against the scheme, though I shall not support it. I regret the necessity for taking a view contrary to that of the Minister, for whom I have the very highest regard and respect, but I think that he has been badly advised here.
I feel it my duty to put forward the case—of the soundness of which I am absolutely convinced—for at least maintaining the present subsidy of 10d. per stone on gutted fish landed by inshore fishing vessels. With my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir R. Boothby), I share the representation in this House of the largest inshore fishing fleet in the British Isles. The vessels in that fleet are, in great measure, owned by their crews. In fact, not one single vessel puts to sea without at least some of its owners being on board, and almost invariably the skipper in the wheelhouse is the principal owner.
I submit that, as it stands, this revised Scheme is not in keeping with the economic circumstances of the inshore fishing industry, not only in the North-East corner of Scotland but throughout the whole of that country. My first complaint is that the figure of 8d. per stone is not based on costings. No costings inquiry whatsoever has been made. Again, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans), the most unseemly haste has been shown. If an alteration were foreseen for the end of this year steps should have been taken much earlier. Here I am referring to the inshore industry. There should have been consultation with the representative bodies in that industry to arrive at an equitable subsidy for the white fish landed.
What happened to the Scottish Inshore White Fish Producers Association? In Scotland the inshore fishing industry is most adequately organised. It is the best, most efficient and far-reaching body representing fishing in Scotland. On 11th November the Scottish Inshore White Fish Producers Association received a communication containing the new subsidy proposals, from the Scottish Office. The majority of the directors of the organisation are practical men, many of them are skippers of vessels, and they were then at sea. The earliest date on which a representative meeting of the directors of the Association could be convened was 18th November, when the Scottish Office was immediately asked to receive a deputation.
The Association, naturally, wanted some time to marshal its facts and to produce vital figures, but it was told that unless the deputation came to Edinburgh by 30th November it would be of no avail, as a decision would be taken then. The deputation went to Edinburgh on 28th November, taking with it all the information it could assemble in the time available. Here I must say that the figures produced did not constitute a costings inquiry. Figures relative to the landings, to wages paid and so on were given, but had more time been given a costings inquiry could have been possible. In the absence of an official costings inquiry, the figures submitted by the Association should have been accepted as conclusive that the subsidy should continue at 10d. per stone until it could be revised after the fullest type of inquiry.
The White Fish Authority, too, should have been playing its part in assembling the necessary data and information for the Minister. It is relatively easy to get the necessary facts because, in Scotland, the quayside salesman acts as the agent for the vessels whose fish he sells. He receives the money for the catch he sells, banks it in the vessel's name, pays all running expenses, pays for oil, nets and the rest. At the end of the week he divides the money—so much for expenses, so much for the vessel and so much for the crew. As I say, it would have been a relatively simple matter to have obtained figures in a very, very short time from the salesmen for a very dependable sample of vessels from one end of Scotland to the other.
On 30th September the Scottish White Fish Producers Association asked the Secretary of State for an increased subsidy, and produced facts in support of that request. Nothing came of it, although I think that a costings inquiry should have then been instituted by the Secretary of State. It has been stated that, as more fish was landed in 1954, the industry was better off. That is a fallacy. It is true that more fish was landed, but weather and other conditions meant that a lot of the fish was sold at an unprofitable price. I say advisedly that there was no increase in the prosperity of the industry. Had there been, it would have been reflected in the wages of those participating in the venture. Landings by the Scottish inshore white fishing industry this year to date are down as compared with 1954.
It must also be borne in mind that the vessels engaged in inshore fishing in Scotland are very largely dual purpose vessels; that is to say, they are vessels which have been obtained through either the Herring Industry Board or the White Fish Authority, and fish for herring for part of the season and for white fish at other times.
The timing of this Scheme leaves much to be desired, following as it does the most disastrous East Anglian herring fishing season, not in living memory but in history. Many of these vessels, in order to obtain anything like a livelihood, have had to turn over to white fishing, and they are now met with this decrease in the subsidy. A subsidy is a basic economic factor in the life of these vessels. Few of these vessels are paid for yet. Nearly all have been obtained under the Grants and Loans Schemes. Loan interest has to be paid, and it is higher than it was before. The loans must be repaid, and therefore the trips of these vessels must be successful in order that the loans are repaid. The liabilities for these vessel have been incurred in the best of faith. One of the considerations that weighed with the fishermen in deciding to buy these vessels under the Scheme, and particularly white fishing vessels, was that a reasonable subsidy would be forthcoming.
There is another consideration which I must emphasise. Any subsidy decrease is met from the men's wages and from the boat's share in equal proportions. That is to say, after expenses are paid,

the residue is divided between the crew and the vessel. A white fish producing vessel in the north-east of Scotland is not paying its way unless each member of the crew obtains an average of £10 a week. In 1952 the average wage of a fisherman for a period of nine months was £10 15s. 4d.; in 1953 it was £10 4s.; in 1954, £11 9s. 3d.; and for the relevant nine months in 1955 it is £10 ls.—28s. a week down on 1954.
Emphasis has already been laid on the dangerous type of occupation that these men follow. There is another vital consideration which had a great bearing upon the legislation which passed through this House when the Grants and Loans Schemes were authorised in the first instance. These men are the backbone of the Naval Reserve. These are the men who in two wars have manned the small vessels which in large measure have defeated the enemy submarine menace. These men are still with us, ready to perform their duty. Anything which detracts from recruitment or tends to reduce the number of active fishermen or to stem the flood of new people entering the industry is to be deplored, and if such a situation arises as a result of "money pinching" that is the most costly form of saving in which this country can indulge.
Let us translate the earnings of fishermen into hours. We have three comparative industries in north-east Scotland—ships' carpenters, engineers and fishermen. In the nine months up to the end of September, carpenters have been getting on average 3s. 7·625d. per hour for a 44 hour week. Engineers have been getting 3s. 8·125d. per hour for a 44-hour week, and fishermen have been getting 2s. 2·27d. per hour for a 90-hour week. It is vital that the fishermen should work those hours. They have to get away immediately after midnight and they have to be back for the afternoon market somewhere around five o'clock. Their work does not end there because Saturday mornings have to be devoted to the repair of gear and so forth. Their hours amount to something like 90 hours a week, and that point should be borne prominently in mind.
Another consideration which ought to be emphasised is the position of the small boats of 45 ft. and under, which by their size are constrained to fish in the waters immediately adjacent to their own ports.


The larger vessels which the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire and I represent, can, when fishing stops in the Moray Firth, go to Shetland and Orkney, into the Minch, down the West Coast, to Northern Ireland and to Whitehaven, and on the East Coast they can go down to North Shields following the fish. But the little boats cannot do that. They have to stay at home. Fortunately, in the last two years fish have been plentiful, though in decreasing quantities, in the Moray Firth. The little boats have been able to make do, but I cannot be party to consigning the men in these little boats to future hardship, which is bound to arise unless an adequate subsidy is forthcoming.
The question of weather is important. One only has to consider what happened this last week. I was in Banffshire during the weekend, and I was informed that there was only one fishing day last week, on Monday, and that was only for the larger boats. Since then there had been a howling gale. Some boats were not able to go to sea at all on Monday, and that means no wages for the men. I saw Buckie harbour crammed with trawlers sheltering from the storm. These vessels are absent from their home ports and drawing their subsidy each day, while the inshore fishermen who are dependent on the catch get no subsidy at all. That is inequitable, and I appeal to the Minister when considering future subsidies or a future scheme to scrap this voyage payment and instead to pay upon landings only.
The Minister has promised the most searching inquiry, and I sincerely trust that such an inquiry will take place. I am very glad to hear the Minister say that, because I know that he is a man of his word. Had I not had an assurance of that kind, I would have gone into the Lobby in Opposition to this Scheme; as it is, I shall abstain from voting.

5.7 p.m.

Mr. James H. Hoy: I should like to associate myself, as I am sure would my right hon. Friends, with some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie). I must, however, preface my further remarks by saying that I thought he was fairly easily satisfied when he said that the explanation which he has received from the Minister this

afternoon prevented him from going into the Lobby and voting against this Scheme.

Mr. Duthie: I did not say that the explanation prevented me from doing so. Indeed, the whole course of my speech should have shown that I am not satisfied with any explanation. I referred to the assurance that I got from the Minister that the matter would receive attention and that a full-scale inquiry would be held.

Mr. Hoy: If things continue to be as bad as they have been, it is doubtful whether there will be any fishermen left in six months' time when the right on. Gentleman considers the matter.
I want to associate myself with the tribute which the hon. Member for Banff paid to the fishermen. We have depended upon them for many years, and anything we may do to injure the fishing fleets must inevitably fall upon our own shoulders when they need assistance.
The Minister in opening the debate painted a background which does not correspond to the background as we know it in Scotland. When this Scheme was made public on 6th December, it undoubtedly brought the whole of the industry, employer and employee alike, down on the head of the Minister. Nobody could see anything good in the Scheme, because, as has been said before, the cut in prices reflects itself in the earnings of the men who sail the boats and is tantamount to a cut in their wages. I am glad that emphasis has been laid on the fact that these men have had no guaranteed working week and least of all a guaranteed 44-hour week. It is rather unfair of the Minister to treat their earnings as if they were equivalent to the earnings of the ordinary person in industry working a 44-hour week. The men realised at a glance that this was going to mean a cut in their earnings.
I am bound to associate myself with the protests that have been made by the industry. The suggestion of the Scottish Inshore White Fish Producers Association that there was undue haste is undoubtedly borne out by the facts as this House sees them, because the first intimation was given in a letter dated 10th November from the Scottish Home Department. That letter was not received until the following day. It stated that any comments had to be received by 30th


November at the very latest. These dates must be looked at in connection with these Schemes because the Scheme was made on 1st December. It was signed by the Secretary of State for Scotland the day after the latest date for receiving objections.
With all due respect to the Secretary of State for Scotland, no one is going to tell me that between the last post on 30th November and 1st December the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give serious consideration to the objections of the industry and to sign a Scheme 24 hours later. I am sure that even the right hon. Gentleman himself would not ask the House to believe that that was the case.
The view of the Association was specifically clear. It said that this was an attack against the fishermen, and that it was so timed as to deprive them of an opportunity of defending themselves. It also made it perfectly plain that, while inviting observations on the new Scheme, the circular issued by the Department made it crystal clear that while it was prepared to receive representations from the industry, it was bound to point out that it considered that the proposals made in the first Order represented the maximum sum for which Parliament could be asked. In these circumstances, it did not seem very much use calling for observations.
Questions were asked, and there was such an outcry that the Minister withdrew the Order. Of that there can be no doubt. I wonder if the Scottish Office was informed about this, because my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) put down a Question to the Secretary of State for Scotland on 13th December asking if the right hon. Gentleman had any statement to make with regard to subsidies paid or about to be paid to the white fish industry. In reply, the right hon. Gentleman said:
New rates for the white fish subsidy are set out in the draft Scheme laid before the House on 6th December which, if approved by Parliament, will come into force on 1st January."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1955; Vol. 547, c. 158.]
That means that 24 hours before the Scheme was changed by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the

Secretary of State for Scotland was assuring the House through his reply to my hon. and learned Friend that the Scheme promulgated and laid on 6th December was the one which was to stand.
This calls for some explanation, for, surely, if the Secretary of State did not know that these changes were to be made 24 hours before they were intimated, how does the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food seek to pursuade the industry that the matter has been given the serious consideration that it merits? From the facts and dates which I have given, I think that I have proved to the House, and certainly to anyone who cares to give the matter serious thought, that the Scheme has not had serious consideration. For an assurance to be given on 13th December that the Scheme promulgated on 6th December was to come into operation as arranged, and then for this tremendous change to be made 24 hours later will certainly not give confidence to the fishing industry in Scotland. It behoves the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland when replying to give a much better explanation than that which we have had so far.
I have received a letter from the Newhaven and Granton Trawler Owners Association which I know does not represent the whole of the industry in the area, because I have had some other difficult cases brought to my notice regarding the boats themselves. There is one case, about which I am in communication with the Secretary of State for Scotland, which very much bears out the last argument of the hon. Member for Banff. It concerns a father and son in my constituency who purchased a boat under the Scheme that came into operation immediately after the war. They invested what savings they had in the boat, but, as the House will well remember, not every boat at that time could get the particular engine that it wanted. Indeed, an inferior type of engine—and I say that quite advisedly—had to be accepted. Many fishermen rue the day that they accepted that engine.
The acceptance of the engine by my constituents has meant poverty for them. For years they have worked very hard to make a success of their venture, but, despite working hard morning, noon and night, they have failed to do so. The boat has now been sold and they are left


with a debt of between £2,000 and £3,000. I must publicly assure the Secretary of State this afternoon that I cannot visualise these people repaying that loan to the Authority.
I now come to the trawlermen who are covered by the Newhaven and Granton Trawler Owners Association. I will not read the first part of the letter which I received from the Association which deals with the Scheme as it was first made, the rates of subsidy to be paid and the amended Scheme. I will only read to the House the concluding paragraphs which are pretty specific. They state:
Thus, the amended proposals have had the effect of restoring to the Inshore fishermen 50 per cent. of the originally proposed deduction, whereas no such concession has been made to the Trawling Industry. It is recognised that the Standard Subsidy to the Trawling Industry has been increased to a degree, but this falls very far short of compensating for the loss of the Supplementary Subsidy. The reduction in Subsidy, therefore, will be very severe in the Trawling Industry, particularly in view of the fact that the Industry has had to accept, no later than last July, an increase in the cost of coal of approximately 12s. per ton, which has added about £1,250 to £1,400 per vessel per annum to the fuel costs alone. The Trawler Owners have also to face increasing wage costs and increased prices in practically all the materials and labour necessary to maintain the vessels and their gear in sound and safe working condition."—
I am certain that not even the Minister would suggest that economies should be carried out on things which are really essential to the safety of the crew—
Some of my Members have committed themselves for large capital sums by ordering new vessels for the fleet, to which higher interest charges now apply, and which will add very considerably to operating costs of new trawlers.
I am bound to point out that since the war Ministers have been appealing to the industry to get rid of the old steam trawlers and to bring in diesel boats to make the industry up to date. Not even my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North would defend the condition of the fishing industry and the boats sailing from that port, but what encouragement will there be to it if the industry is faced with these new charges? Certainly, a few progressive owners in my constituency have really made an effort and new trawlers are being built in Aberdeen to meet the Government's demand. They have to meet all the added interest charges. It is a fairly sharp deal for them that having acceded to the

Government's request to fulfil this function, they should now be faced with increased interest charges as a result of the action of the Government themselves.
The Association's letter concludes by saying:
My members vigorously protest against the inequality of treatment in the matter of subsidy, which certainly undermines the confidence with which they view the future and must necessarily exercise a restraining influence upon their enterprise.
That can be the only result of these Schemes made by the Government.
What have the Government to lose? Within a fortnight they have introduced a Scheme, cancelled it and introduced another. The Minister is bound to realise that this gives satisfaction to no one in this House, on either side. He will not get one Member to defend it. In these circumstances, even at this moment, why does he not call it a day, withdraw the Scheme, have some regard for, and adequate consultation with, the industry, and then present a new Scheme, which would give satisfaction not only to the owners, but to the men themselves?
I conclude with a small point which is peculiar to the port in my constituency. We certainly have difficulties, which are peculiar to Newhaven and Granton, with boxing and other charges, which are fairly substantial, and when average figures are being arrived at I wonder whether all these peculiarities are taken into consideration. Not only do I hope that these points will be considered, even if only for the future, but that the Minister will withdraw the Scheme and start afresh.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. G. B. H. Currie: This would appear to be a very cold and wet subject on which to make a maiden speech. This is indeed my maiden speech, but I have felt compelled to speak on this subject because of the very real concern of the inshore fishermen of my constituency in North Down. I have been advised of the need to be as non-controversial as possible. I am hoping, perhaps, to sail close to the wind on some occasions, but not to jibe the boat.
In North Down, we have at present to contend with a certain degree of unemployment. We are most concerned that it should not invade the ranks of our fishing fleet. That is one of the foremost considerations which has caused me to speak on this subject. We are a remote county


having regard to the mainland and the markets of London, Glasgow and the Midlands. Our fishermen have to contend with freight charges to market which are not such a marked feature with fishermen of the mainland.
I do not know whether the Minister has had regard to the fact that in March freight charges across the Irish Sea rose by 10 per cent. and that an early further rise is visualised. Our fishermen have to convey the fish from the ports, which for the most part are remote from Belfast, to the Port of Belfast before it can be shipped over to the mainland for market. They have to pay freight charges in common with their English, Scottish and Welsh brethren in conveying the fish from the railhead to Billingsgate or to whatever other market the fish is sent. All these burdens and costs have to come out of such earnings as the fishermen make from their arduous and dangerous toil in the course of fishing at sea.
Another point which I do not know whether the Minister has considered is the increase in the cost of fuel oil, the essential commodity in the modern fishing fleet, particularly so far as the inshore fisherman is concerned. My information is that the cost of fuel oil has risen by 22½ per cent. since 1950. That is a substantial increase in the overhead expenses necessary to the fisherman so that he may land the fish.
I do not want to weary the House with figures or statistics, but, having referred to freight charges, I should like to give the figure so that my right hon. Friend may have it in mind when he has further regard to the undertaking which I was so delighted to hear him give in opening the debate. The freight charges on fish from Northern Ireland to Billingsgate Market amount to 14s. 7d. per cwt. for the carriage of the fish across the Irish Sea. That leaves aside the cost of transport from the port at which the fish is landed to the Port of Belfast, at which it is embarked for its journey across the Irish Sea, and leaves out of account also the delivery charge from the railhead in London to Billingsgate Market. In lots of three tons, the price is reduced to a minimum figure of 11s. 11d. These are burdens which are heavy upon the fishermen and burdens which, I know, my right

hon. Friend will take into account when reviewing the subsidy figure for the future.
I suppose that in my constituency of North Down there is the largest part of the inshore fishing fleet of Northern Ireland. In County Down, the figures of our fleet are not as astronomical as mine were during the Election, but we have 59 vessels, employing 285 men. These vessels sail from the ports of Portavogie, Ardglass, Annalong and Kilkeel. Those ports have a population of about 4,500. There is no other industry in those ports. The shopkeepers and other people living there are entirely dependent upon fishing for their livelihood. Fishing ports are necessarily remote by virtue of the nature of the occupation carried on by the fishermen; they must be by the sea, and, for the most part, remote from the cities.
I earnestly appeal to my right hon. Friend, in giving the further consideration to this matter he undertook to do in his speech today, to have regard to the incidence of unemployment in these remote places. One of my hon. Friends referred to the part which the fishermen have played in the defence of the shores of this country in war, and to how the fishing fleets, and particularly the inshore fishing fleets, supplied the personnel who protected our shores from the ravages of the U-boat and the maritime forces of the enemy intent upon the invasion of our land. All that is very true, but if the fishermen are to be driven away from the sea by reason of their reward being so low that they can no longer continue to earn their livelihood at sea, it will indeed be a sorry day for the Royal Navy of this great old country of ours.
At Portavogie which is the largest fishing port in Northern Ireland, the Government recently invested approximately £250,000 in building one of the finest harbours we have in Northern Ireland for the use of the fishermen. The fishermen were indeed grateful. They felt that the Government were realising to the full the hazards of their occupation and the necessity of taking whatever measures were possible for the stimulation and encouragement of the fishing industry. At Kilkeel at the present time further expenditure is being incurred by the Government in the construction of harbour works. In the first port I mentioned, private industry is at this very moment erecting works to benefit the fishermen and to


facilitate the sending of the fish to the markets of this country. Is all this expenditure, are all these works, to be wasted by reason of the subsidy's being cut off without proper figures having been supplied to justify its being cut off or reduced, so that the fishermen who would otherwise use those harbours will no longer be there to use them?
As another hon. Member has said; in the inshore fisheries there is a system of profit sharing amongst those who go to sea. Five or six men man a boat on each occasion. When they come home, after the expenses have been paid and the necessary deductions made, the profit is shared out on a percentage basis amongst the crew. I do earnestly appeal to my right hon. Friend to see that what profit is left is sufficient to provide a livelihood for the men and their families who are so dependent upon this one industry in those remote places.
This is my maiden speech, as I have said, and I do not want to mar my record by talking for too long, and so I will conclude, by asking my right hon. Friend if he would be so good as to answer a question, because his answer might afford some satisfaction not only to me but to those for whom I speak today. He said, "If the inshore fishery organisations believe that they can supply us with useful figures which we have not at present got, the Secretary of State and I will very gladly arrange for discussions to be started straight away." The question I would ask is whether in saying that he means business, whether he means that the discussions can start forthwith, as soon as the information is supplied, and whether he means that, having had those discussions, he will proceed to present to this House, in place of this Scheme, another scheme which will assure for these decent, hard working, clean living men an income which will be more than a bare subsistence.

5.37 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: I am very glad to be able to follow the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Currie) in the debate. On behalf of the House, I must congratulate him most sincerely on a most admirable maiden speech. I do so for everybody in this Chamber. I have very happy memories of the kindness of the people of Down during the war. I have also some experience

of their enterprise and industry. I remember putting down miles and miles of signal wire which they collected with the utmost agility, and put it to very much better use, no doubt, than we should have done ourselves. I have no doubt that they prosecute their fishing in the same spirit. I have no doubt, too, that when the hon. Member addresses us again on fishing or on freights we shall listen to him with attention. I felt my heart warm to him as he spoke of the intolerable burden which we who live across the sea have to bear in freight charges.
Like the hon. Member, I cannot understand why the Government ever introduced either of these Schemes. The Minister's speech made my confusion worse confounded. It took my breath away to hear him say the Government are now to start seeing whether they can arrange for better consultation with the fishing industry. I do not know about the Minister, but the Secretary of State for Scotland and the other Scottish Ministers are surely supposed to know about the fishing industry, and they are supposed to have adequate means of consultation with the industry now. It is hardly good enough for them to say, "We made a most frightful muddle of one scheme and we do not much like the second, but in future we are going to find out more facts and figures before we propose to wreck this industry and interfere with the lives of the people in it." For that is what all this amounts to.
Apparently there was no consultation in Leith, there was no effort to find out the situation in Down, and there was no consultation along the north or northeast coast of Scotland or in Shetland. A representative of the Shetland Fishermen's Association was in Edinburgh on 29th November talking about fishing, and not a word was said to him about this proposal. The first he knew of it was when he was going home and he read about it in the Press and Journal. We are told that it is important to have good relations with the fishing industry, but in my experience nothing has done more harm to the relationship of the Government with the fishermen than the introduction of the Schemes. The Secretary of State was writing, as I know, up to 9th December that it was impossible to alter the Scheme, which had been most carefully considered. Yet four or five


days later the Scheme was completely altered. It is very difficult to persuade the industry that it is receiving the attention which it deserves or that there is a close grip on the situation when these things occur.
What arguments are put forward for the second Scheme? It is said that we must assist the steam trawlers because of the extra cost of coal, but coal is not the only cost that has risen. The hon. Member for Down, North drew attention to the rise in freight costs. Most of the inshore industry is in the more remote parts of the country. It is very hard hit all round the coast and in places like my own constituency by the rise in freight costs. The cost of ice in the Scalloway is £2 15s. a ton. The cost of fuel has gone up. We all know that as long as the inflation goes on at its present rate the subsidies automatically become worth less. Year after year, fishermen in particular are feeling the effect of ever-rising costs. To take one example: a boat which grossed £3,000 over a certain period made only £2,000 after paying freight and marketing charges at Aberdeen. I do not think it can be said that the cost of the industry has fallen so much that a drastic cut can now be made in subsidies for inshore vessels.
The Minister tells us that inshore vessels have been doing very well and that inshore fishing is now a prosperous industry. Where does he get his figures? Does he take only the best figures? I am told that one of the more successful boats in Shetland grossed £10,000 last season and of that £6,000 came from white fishing. After paying £500 per man in wages to the crew and other expenses, £1,200 were left. The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie), who knows the industry extremely well, has said that a boat cannot be considered to be paying averagely well unless it pays £10 per week in wages. Yet the best boats in Shetland only pay this.
We have another example of a boat earning about £3,000 gross and making a loss in the year. These fishermen will simply be put out of business. This reduction in the subsidy may kill all the smaller boats. Therefore, if it is properly costed, it cannot be said that the industry is making so much money that we can afford to slash a good deal off the subsidies. It must be remembered that this

is the fishermen's life-work and entire livelihood, and that if this occupation goes they will have to move away from the ports altogether.
In Shetland, we have two outlets for white fish. One is Aberdeen. The cost and the dangers of running fish to Aberdeen are becoming prohibitive. Week after week the boats cannot sail to Aberdeen. It must be remembered that if they do not go to sea they receive no subsidy. There are times when either they cannot go to sea or, having caught the fish, cannot take it to Aberdeen. The other outlet is "Fromac." We are grateful for what is done by "Fromac." But it has paid on an average only 1s. to 1s. 9d. a stone. Does the House realise that that is the price that fishermen in Shetland receive for their fish? Is it on that basis that the Government have decided to cut down the subsidy?
This Scheme seems to be another blow at the smaller man, and I am afraid that that is the whole trend of the Government's present policy…The financial squeeze has not yet affected Imperial Chemical Industries or Vauxhall Motors, but it has already put into bankruptcy many of the smaller people. The Conservative Government, in six months, have done as much damage to the small men as the Socialist Governments did in six years, and I fear that the same thing is happening in the fishing industry. The bigger boats are receiving a higher subsidy. The old, worn-out Aberdeen trawlers will gain the higher subsidy, but the inshore fisherman is to be penalised.
I agree that there is always a case for not paying a subsidy at all. The Minister may say that it was not intended that the subsidies should go on for ever, but the right hon. Gentleman is not reducing but increasing the total. He is increasing them for the bigger boats. He is increasing the voyage payments. He is increasing them for the less efficient part of the industry in Scotland, but he is cutting down the subsidy for the very people who need it. Undoubtedly, the reduction will cause a great deal of hardship to many families in the North of Scotland. It will cause a great deal of distress in the small ports. There are no other outlets for the fishermen. They must go off to work on the hydro-electric schemes or in the beet-sugar factory at Cupar, and once we lose the fishing


families they will never come back. That will apply to the Clyde, to the Highlands, to the north-east coast and Shetland.
What is all this talk about Highland development and the need to keep people in the Highlands and to encourage the kind of industries which employ people there? What is the good of Ministers going to the Highlands and saying that, to keep the population there, new outlets must be provided and new enterprises encouraged? The one industry in my constituency which keeps the people in the area is fishing. It is in Skerries, Whalsey and Burra that the people have remained, even although they have no proper harbours there. It is enterprising places like Cullivoe which have set their hopes on the future of fishing. Is this Scheme the kind of encouragement that is to be given to the people who have tried to remain in these areas?
It is said that next summer everything will be better, that the Government will have consulted the industry and that we shall have a new Scheme, but the result of the muddle of the last six weeks is such as to gravely shake the confidence of the industry in the existence of a fishing policy at the top in this Government. This muddle will make many families doubt whether it is worth while for them and their children to stay in this dangerous and extremely ill-rewarded industry which, nevertheless, is of vital importance to the nation.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. Richard Stanley: I hope that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) will forgive me if I do not follow him very far in what he has said. I am anxious to bring the debate back to England. I agreed with a great deal of what the hon. Member said, until he got on to political matters on which, I fear, we do not see eye to eye.
I want to talk about the near and middle water fishermen. The case for them was very ably put by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) who, I suppose, knows more about the subject than most people. He put the case very fairly. I should like to say to the Minister that at the beginning I was inclined to support him because it appeared that he was going to cut Government expenditure, something which some of us on these benches have

been trying to force on the Government. Now, however, my right hon. Friend admits that he will not cut Government expenditure, but will actually increase it.
If the Government are to cut any of their expenditure, this is absolutely the worst case they could possibly find. It is a matter of dealing in comparatively small sums in relation to the global figure involved. The small extra sum which the Government could give would make a great deal of difference to the industry. I am certain that all hon. Members who know the industry, no matter on what side of the House they sit, will agree on that point.
Nothing has been said about why the subsidy was given in the first place. I know it was given to help fishermen other than distant water fishermen, but I also gathered that it was given so that the public could have prime and good fish to eat besides eating cod. Cod is all very well, but I cannot believe that we shall get many new recruits to the eating of fish if all they are to have is cod. If the Minister makes it harder for people to obtain good fish, he will also be doing a great disservice to the non-subsidised distant water fishermen, for they will feel the effects of this very much.
The Minister's reputation will not be enhanced if there is a great falling off in the amount of good fish available to people and he will become Public Enemy No. 1 against everyone unless they eat red meat. I hope he will bear that very much in mind when looking at the matter again.
It seems that in a debate of this sort one has to talk very much about one's constituency because all the ports, whether they be in England, Wales, Ireland or Scotland, appear to be very different.

Mr. G. R. Howard: What about Cornwall?

Mr. Stanley: I thought Cornwall was in England.
My port, Fleetwood, is in a peculiar position. It is on the west coast and there is greater distance about steaming there than to some other ports because one has to go further to get there, and its activity fluctuates very much. During the war the people from Hull and Grimsby fished there because their ports were nearer the bombing. There was a very flourishing


trade at Fleetwood during the war; later it fell off, but now the port is doing slightly better.
I want to say what the cut in subsidy will mean to the fishermen of Fleetwood. There are some distant water fishermen there, but I will talk only of the near and middle water fishermen. They have about ten new diesel trawlers. The loss to these people will be about £22,000 in the first nine months of this year. Any one who knows a smallish port like that will appreciate that that really represents a lot of the profit.
Some of the owners have been farseeing and have done what the Minister wanted and ordered some new trawlers. They ordered them thinking the Minister would definitely maintain the subsidy. Not only will they now lose on the price of fish, but every day that goes by their ships cost very much more. When they ordered their ships they were getting 25 per cent. of the £100,000 limit, and the vessels were going to cost about £120,000 each. Take the case of one vessel ordered about eighteen months ago. It will be delivered in six months' time, and it will then cost £145,000, which means another £25,000 more than when it was ordered, and when the man gets his vessel he will find that the subsidy has been halved.
It will be seen that from that point of view the people have no great faith that the Government are helping them. If the Government said, "You are having a very difficult time. Therefore, we will keep up the grant for the boat even over £100,000 because of the way expenditure is going up," the people would feel much better about it. But that is not happening. The subsidy is being cut on fish while the expenditure on the boat rises.
Other costs have been going up at the same rate, or even more so. The fact ought also to be borne in mind that there has been a very bad herring season. I do not know whether it is true, but many fishermen have told me that when there is a bad year for herring there is always a bad year for white fish as well. I do not know whether that is an old woman's tale, but it is definitely the tale which is going round. At any rate, some of the fishermen say that. I must confess that when I met them they were very gloomy. I hope that the Minister will bear all such things in mind.
There is something else which I hoped would happen, but it is obvious that nothing is to happen. There are some ships over 140 feet long, and they have definitely gone beyond the stage when they can be used for distant water fishing—it would not be right to use them for it—but they are still perfectly all right for near or middle water fishing. We are told by the Minister that we have to maintain catching power. As long as these ships were absolutely safe for that although, because of discomfort and other reasons, it would not be right to use them for the longer trips, I hoped that they would get some subsidy, but it is obvious that when the subsidy on new boats is cut they are not likely to be helped.
Hon. Members have already spoken about temporary unemployment among fishing crews. I know that in my area, if there is any unemployment among the fishermen, the men can work elsewhere. However much they may like the sea and however much the sea may be in their blood, there is no doubt that after they have had a taste of working in, say, an I.C.I. factory at about £12 a week and working a five-day week, they and their wives sometimes are very much happier.
The Government ought not to disappoint these people. We must think of the economics of the matter. If the owners cannot send their vessels to sea, they will suffer a loss in money, but the industry will also suffer in losing the men who might leave the industry altogether. When things become more prosperous and subsidies are made available and the business starts up again, we shall have the ships to go to sea, but we shall not have the men to go in them.
When the Minister introduced his first cut in the subsidy, he had obviously thought it out very hard and for a long time with his officials. Then he made a change, and he helped the home water people. The people from my constituency, many of whom have not been helped, feel that pressure was brought to bear upon the Minister by very many people, particularly Scots. Not very many represent those in the near and middle water fishing, and these people cannot help feeling that pressure was brought to bear on the Minister by very great numbers of people. I hope that my right hon. Friend will review the matter before the end of July and will


remember the difficult position in which he has put these people who will suffer now.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. Desmond Donnelly: The extraordinary thing about the debate has been that nobody has said a word in favour of the Scheme, except the Minister, and I am not sure that he spoke very strongly in favour of it. There has been a great amount of unanimity on both sides of the House in attacking the Government's proposals. Therefore, right at the beginning I should like to say one or two words in favour of the Minister because I feel that he is badly in need of some support.
First, I should like to place on record the fact that I am obliged to him for accepting the representations made to him about the special position of the Spanish Pair fishing, and, secondly, my constituency is obliged to him for honouring the promise which he gave in the House in July regarding the position of the older type coal-burning steam trawler. That does not mean that we accept the Scheme as a whole, or that we accept the cuts which have taken place in the subsidy per stone of the landings at the fishing ports.
I would like to say a word about the inshore fishermen. The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie), in a remarkable and sincere speech—we always listen to him with respect when he talks about the fishing industry, because he is one of the very few hon. Members who have had actual practical experience of the industry—made it clear that the inshore section of the industry is in a very serious situation. If the Minister is really concerned about the future of the fishing industry, he will have to come to the House immediately after the Recess and make a statement on what he means to do about the small people.
The fact is that they do not have the resources to carry on for a long period of time. In the context of the present economic position, with the credit squeeze, these people, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said, are the most vulnerable. The right hon. Gentleman will have to give an assurance, if he is to have any measure of support, even from his own side, about what he intends to do about this particular section

of the industry immediately after the Parliamentary Recess.
The second thing I have to say is to do with the near and middle water section of the industry. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who has a similar problem in his own constituency, I represent a port for the near and middle water sections of the industry. Vessels have to go around Southern Ireland and fish in the Irish fishing grounds and in mid-Atlantic. Since the present Government have been in office, there has been a grave deterioration in the Welsh fishing industry. The fishing fleet at Milford Haven has been halved since the Government came to power and if the present rate of decline goes on, at the end of this Parliament the fishing industry of Milford Haven will also end. It is as bad as that.
There were 90 trawlers in that port when the Government came into power and the number effectively fishing has now been reduced to about 40. That constitutes a serious social problem for the extreme west of Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East has undertaken a self-denying ordinance from the Front Bench, but his constituency has an even more acute position and the fishing industry in it may end not before the end of this Parliament, but before the end of next year, unless Steps are taken rapidly.
I want to know from the Government, even if we agree to the present Scheme, what will happen eventually about the near and middle water sections. We are asked to support the Scheme because the Minister is to undertake a full-scale inquiry in the course of next year. What about replacement of old vessels? It is no good talking about subsidies, unless they are adequate to lead to the inculcation of confidence in the industry to the extent of the building of new vessels. The present position is that the average cost of building new vessels and sending them to sea is about £1,000 per foot. A 125-foot vessel costs about £125,000. If the White Fish Authority grant of £25,000 is allowed for, that still leaves the owner having to meet a cost of £100,000, and the immediate costs which he has to face are interest and depreciation charges.
The interest charges at about 5 per cent. per annum come to about £5,000 and, if a 20-year depreciation rate is


taken, the depreciation charges are another £5,000 a year. The other regular charge which the owner has to meet is insurance and at the rate of 2½ per cent. per annum, that is £2,500 a year; so the charge which has to be met by an owner proposing to build a new vessel is, at the outset, £12,500 a year, in addition to the heavy responsibility which he has incurred with a £100,000 vessel.
We have to ask ourselves whether the statement which we have heard from the Government this afternoon and this Scheme are sufficient to instil enough confidence into the industry to build new vessels. The only way we can decide that is to compare the costs which face trawler owners with new vessels and those with older vessels of the same class. The average cost of older vessels in loan charges, interest, insurance and depreciation and with perhaps a four or five years' life for the vessel is about £1,500 a year. Thus, the difference between the old and the new vessel is about £11,000 per year and there is no evidence to show that a new vessel catches any more fish. The Government must show that there is enough hope for the future of the industry so that it will lead to the building of new vessels, or eventually there will be no new vessels in the industry. As it stands, the Scheme is only a temporary ameliorative which will not meet the long-term problem of the industry.
We have heard nothing about supplies of fish. It is no good talking about subsidies and the costs of the fishing industry, unless we get more fish, or more for the fish. That is the practical problem. From time to time we have heard about research projects which have been undertaken by the White Fish Authority, but it is my belief that these research questions have been simply tinkered with. When can we have a statement about future research in the fishing grounds? Can there be a statement about what the new mesh will mean? Have we any comprehensive information about what the situation is likely to be in the course of four or five years, a sort of actuarial calculation on the future of fishing with the new mesh?
I see my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) in his place. There is the classic story—I do not know whether it is true—about the Belgian trawler which was caught in

Lowestoft not using the new mesh. When representations were made to the Belgian authorities through the usual channels, the answer was, I am informed, that it was perfectly true that a law had been passed in Belgium to concur with the International Convention on Overfishing for the use of the new mesh, but it was regretted that nothing could be done because no penalties attached to the law to ensure its observance. I see that my hon. Friend nods his acquiescence. We want to know what is happening about the Convention and future supplies of fish, and where we are likely to be in four or five years' time.
Then there is the question of marketing. The position of marketing in the fishing industry is the most chaotic of any industry I know, with the exception of horticulture. The White Fish Authority has no powers at present to undertake an adequate survey into marketing. Until we can get a closer relation between the price paid for fish at the port and the price paid by the housewife on the slab, we shall get nowhere, and it is vital to the future of the fishing industry that we should have that closer relation.
I promised to be very brief, and I see several of my hon. Friends who wish to speak. I conclude by saying to the Government that I see no hope for the industry on the lines of the policy which has been expressed by the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon. It is a very important industry for a number of reasons and yet, as far as we can ascertain, at the end of four years in office Her Majesty's Government lack completely any kind of policy for the industry. We want a statement of policy, and perhaps we can get it this evening.

6.8 p.m.

Lady Tweedsmuir: The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) has put his finger on the one problem which affects my constituency more than anything else, and that is where the Scheme will help Aberdeen to rebuild its fishing fleet. I find myself in a position very different from that of the majority of hon. Members who have spoken this afternoon in that, even if the cut in the landing rate from 4d. to 2d. is taken into account, nevertheless the bulk of the fleet in Aberdeen will qualify for the voyage subsidy, as they are steam vessels.
We find that the result of the Scheme would be a net increase of £508 per boat, or, if the period of six months as proposed in the Scheme is taken, of £254 for the six months. Taking that into account and looking at the industry as a whole, I feel that the Minister this afternoon genuinely desired to get to the root of the problem and for those reasons I shall vote for that Scheme, and I hope that that will be of some encouragement to the Minister.
The Steam Vessels Association, in Aberdeen, welcomes part of the Scheme. Of course, it welcomes the increase in the voyage subsidies and is naturally very much against the cut in the landings subsidy. But again to encourage the Minister, I would say that not only are they satisfied with the increase in the voyage payments, but they are glad that their request has been met for the inclusion of the Shetland voyages in the Faroe class, and also that their representations were met for waiving the proposal to make a qualifying period for the subsidy.
I wish now to deal with those matters about which they disagree, and upon which I should like to put their views and to make some comments of my own. They are, of course, against the landing rate, for various reasons. The first is the question of cost. Even the known increases in fuel, gear and wages will result in an estimated loss, in 1956, of £1,400 per boat. As the Minister -has said, these figures include depreciation. This afternoon, my right hon. Friend gave a figure of £1,000 a boat, and I suppose one must take it that that is owing to the age of the fleet; some of the boats have already been written off altogether.
Nevertheless, taking the figure of £1,400 of estimated loss, if we set against that the increased subsidy of £500—these are yearly figures—we are left with a net estimated deficit of about £900 per boat. Apart from any increases in the cost of fuel or gear which may, or may not take place, there are certain known probable increases which will take place regarding wages. We have in this country a miners' pay claim of 2s. 6d. extra per shift. Even were that not met in its entirety, it is bound to mean an increase in the price of coal which, of course, is of prime importance to steam vessels and the reason for the voyage payment. The National Union of Railwaymen has a

pay claim which, if met—and it is likely to be—may mean an increase in freight charges and that means a great deal to us in the North. Thirdly, there is a demand for a substantial increase in the wages of riveters, which may well cause an increase in the cost of shipbuilding.
If we take coal alone, the subsidy proposals for near and middle water fishermen, as estimated, will cover about 33 per cent, of the coal increase. I was given to understand that the Scottish Department had made quite clear that a much larger percentage of the coal increase would be met by the subsidy. If the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is to reply to the debate, I shall be glad if he will give a specific answer on that point. At present, the subsidy meets only 33 per cent. of the coal increase.
I should like to put various suggestions to the Minister which are worthy of consideration during the coming six months, either when my right hon. Friend puts a new Scheme before Parliament in July, or if he proposes an amending Scheme earlier. Surely a larger percentage of the coal increase is justified in view of the voyage payments given to the steam vessels. The trawler owners in Aberdeen would like the restoration of the landing subsidy of 4d., the proposal is 2d. They have asked for an increase up to Is., but I find myself unable to support that proposition at a time when we are trying to get back to a more realistic system of finance regarding subsidies. I am supported by Mr. Croft Baker, President of the British Trawlers Federation, who says that it is quite clear that subsidies must end. If they are not ended by 1958, they can be continued only in very exceptional circumstances.
I should like to put to the Minister the analogy of the Mercantile Marine. It does not want an operating subsidy, but it does want permission to keep more of its own earnings for the purposes of rebuilding, in spite of the fact that it has to face flag discrimination, which, of course, our fishing fleet does not. If we are trying—as the Government are—to return to a system of sound finance, it would be better for the Treasury, which, after all, is behind the subsidy, to look at the whole question of earnings in the industry in relation to taxation rather than to have a long period of uneconomic subsidies.


One has to remember in this context that even if we try to have subsidies, as we are now doing, to help the rebuilding of the fleet, together with grants, loans have to be repaid over a number of years and the repayments are rather heavy for anyone who proposes to build today.
When this matter is reviewed before July, I suggest that something which, I know, has been carefully considered in the past and, so far, has been rejected should be examined again; that is, the question of regional differentiation. I cannot believe that it is impossible. After all, as the Minister said this afternoon in relation to the inshore fishermen, conditions vary very widely from port to port, and that is so particularly with the near and middle water fleet. Naturally, in this connection I make a special plea for Aberdeen. In view of the geographical situation of some ports, and also of the extra freight charges which some ports have to bear, would it not be possible to take into account this problem when arrangements regarding a subsidy are discussed?
So far as my own constituency is concerned, the reason behind any of these suggestions is to try to enable the Aberdeen owners to make a reasonable return for a number of years in order that, in their own words,
they would play their part and see that Aberdeen's fleet was modernised at a much faster rate than is being done at present.
I need hardly tell the House that it is absolutely vital for the Port of Aberdeen that its fleet should be rebuilt; not only because if we had a modern fleet we should, of course, have modern and ancillary industries on which one-third of our people depend for their employment, but because, of the present fleet of about 180 steam vessels, seven-eighths are 30 years old and half are over 40 years old. The costs of building have nearly trebled since before the war, and one of the problems is that of the 88 Aberdeen owners, 70 control only 87 trawlers between them. This large number of individual owners makes it difficult to rebuild unless several of them pool their resources.
This is gradually being done. Since the war six modern trawlers have been built without any assistance whatever, although one has been sold to Norway. By the first half of this year the White

Fish Authority had received 17 applications for grants and loans. A leading shipbuilder in the constituency has said that 18 berths have been booked in his yard and expects several more, but that is not enough.
In the last week a new company has been formed, called Aberdeen Motor Trawlers, Limited. It is the result of the efforts of the fish merchants themselves, through a voluntary levy on all fish landed, to try to secure that 40 or 50 diesel-engined trawlers will be built over ten years. Only one-sixth of the merchants operating at the port subscribed to the scheme. However, the company has been formed, two orders have been placed and it is hoped to have two more, and, altogether, there will possibly be five or six vessels. All of us must admire the initiative and the risk being taken by those who are building boats for Aberdeen, but it is not enough.
One hon. Gentleman, I think it was the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said, "Why should the inefficient fleet at Aberdeen be subsidised?" My hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) went so far as to say that there should be no voyage payment at all. I could not disagree more with either of them. The whole point of the Scheme is to try to have a subsidy as long as one can so as to ensure the rebuilding of the fleet.
Nevertheless, we are considering public money, and the questions which we must therefore put to ourselves are these: should the subsidy be paid for a longer period than between now and 1958, should it be at a higher rate than the Scheme at present suggests or, on the other hand, should one simply take powers under the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1951, and ask the White Fish Authority to equip and order vessels, charter them for operation, but not operate them itself?
In both cases public money is involved, and that is the responsibility with which we are faced. Obviously, even with an operating subsidy and even with grants and loans for building, it is very much better from the taxpayers' point of view that the first method should be used. I have, therefore, suggested to the Aberdeen trawler owners that they should submit a very carefully worked out scheme to the Minister, giving a reasonable level of subsidy at which the industry thinks it


possible to have a swifter and larger rebuilding scheme than that being carried out at present—remembering all the time that we are giving the subsidy for special reasons, including the strategic reason, since the fleet as a whole is in bad shape. We cannot entirely compare the industry with agriculture, for in many cases the problems are quite different.
I do not know whether it is practical to make an arrangement whereby the profits are definitely put aside into a building fund. I believe there are some in Aberdeen who hold the view that this should be done, but I need hardly say that it is highly controversial and that no agreement has been reached. As guardians of the public purse, asking for a subsidy for a definite purpose, I feel we should have some assurance that the boats will, in fact, be built.
I want to ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State whether he can give me a reply to a second question. In its 1955 Report, the White Fish Authority said that it had
had preliminary discussions with the Fisheries Departments on other means of bringing about more rebuilding of the Aberdeen fleet.
I know that the Ministers have been very much concerned about this question and have spent a great deal of time on it, and I should like to know what progress these discussions are making and whether any conclusion has yet been reached.
When I look at this subsidy, what matters more to me than anything else is that the Aberdeen fleet should be rebuilt. I do not myself think that it will ever be as large as it has been in the past. It is estimated that one modern trawler is worth two which are out of date. A small, efficient fleet could therefore bring as much prosperity to Aberdeen, with better working conditions for all concerned.
Although Aberdeen is further from the main markets, it is also one day's steaming nearer some of the main fishing grounds. It is also renowned for its quality fish. I therefore feel that the Aberdeen fleet should always be a good investment. Some English capital has been introduced there recently, which I personally welcome very much, although I believe some folk say that, "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread." Nevertheless, I hope that our own folk will make use of the opportunities which we have before us to try to secure a satisfactory

livelihood in this industry, on which so many Aberdonians depend.
In supporting the Scheme, I must express the hope that the Minister will go into the matter from the long-term view, remembering that that was the original object of the 1953 Act.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: The hon. Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) has distinguished herself by being the only speaker in the debate to offer a meed of praise to the Minister for this poor little Scheme. She disagrees with the other hon. Members of this jury who find the Minister and the Government guilty of having brought in a bad Scheme at a bad time and in a bad way. I am sorry to find that when my colleague in the representation of the City of Aberdeen finds an occasion upon which to distinguish herself, she does so by taking the wrong side—a side which is inimical to the good of the trade and industry of Aberdeen.
Notwithstanding all this, and perhaps encouraged by the hon. Lady's support, the Government seem determined to go through with this wretched Scheme. They seem determined to ram it home. I wonder why. Are they doing it for political reasons? After all, this should not be treated as a political or a party matter; it is an industrial and an economic matter which should be dealt with on its merits.
The Government are not dealing with it on its merits. Only a fortnight ago they introduced another Scheme for much the same purpose and with very little difference except for a few figures, but they have abandoned that and thrown it away. Why? That is a sinister mystery, and the House is entitled to know the explanation of it. What was the first Scheme based upon? Was it based upon a fantasy which they were content to blow away in order to substitute a new fantasy? Was it based upon facts which have not been put before the House?
The Minister was asked today what were the facts upon which that first Scheme was based and where they differed from the facts upon which this Scheme, produced ten days later, is based. He was unable to give any facts. We therefore do not know whether the


Scheme is based upon fact or whether it is a matter of opinion. If it is a matter of opinion, obviously the opinion of far and away the majority of speakers in the debate—except for that of the hon. Lady—is against this miserable Scheme. If the House is to be guided by majority opinion then it should, as I hope it will, vote against this Scheme.
This new white fish Scheme, like its unfortunate still-born brother, seems to be based not upon facts or figures; it seems to be part of the stupid and undiscriminating squeeze which the Government are inflicting not only on trade and industry but also on the culture and the social life of Britain. Is that the case? I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will tell us whether it is. Is it a fact that, after the teachers, the fishermen are the victims; and are the housewives to be the next victims? It seems to me that the Government are sacrificing the fishing industry for political reasons. If that is so, it is a thoroughly contemptible and wrong thing to do.
It seems that the Government, in a vain attempt to save themselves from the results of financial muddle, are making a many-pronged attack upon industry, labour, education, housewives, consumers, and schoolteachers—all to save a few pounds. Some of these the Government will kill outright; some they will only injure. But there is no doubt that British trade, industry, culture and home life are suffering from this policy of the Government, which they are now applying to the white fishing industry.
By the Scheme which the Government abandoned last week, and by this Scheme, the Government are attacking not only the white fish industry but also the shipbuilding industry. In attacking those two vital industries they are damaging all classes, ranging from shipowners, shipbuilders, merchants, distributors of fish, transport and freight workers, and fish market workers to consumers.
The Authority was set up by Statute to help the fishing industry, and that it has done very well, but it will be handicapped by a Scheme such as this. The annual reports of the Authority show the difficulties which it has overcome and those which are still to be surmounted. They indicate that this new Scheme is

contrary to the interests of the Authority and of other national industries. The former of the two Schemes sought to reduce the flat rate subsidy available to vessels under 70 feet in length from 10d. to 6d. a stone for gutted fish, and from 8d. to 4d. a stone for ungutted fish. Upon what was that based? No facts, figures or reasons have been advanced. Then, this new Scheme was suddenly brought in, with slightly altered figures. Why was that done? No evidence has been laid before the House, and the House is entitled to have some before it can decide whether or not this is a good and proper Scheme.
I have had letters of protest from various sectors of the fishing industry. The Aberdeen Steam Fishing Vessels Owners Association Limited is, as its name implies, a shipowners' association. In a letter to me, dated 16th December, it says:
It is clear that this is a political move and not in the best interests of the fishing industry. The vociferous protests of certain Unionist M.P.s have been listened to by the Government when the grounds upon which these M.P.s have been basing their case are not sound
I ask the House to take the view that this is an industrial and economic matter, and not a political one. If the assertions in that letter are accurate the Government stand condemned by applying a political test to a matter which is not political but is industrial and economical.

Sir Robert Boothby: The hon. and learned Member now says that it is not a political matter. A moment ago he said that it was part of a many-pronged attack by the Government upon the culture of the country.

Mr. Hughes: What I said was quite consistent. The hon. Member appears to have misunderstood me. I said that it appears that the Government are actuated by political motives when they should be actuated only by industrial and economic considerations. The letter from which I have quoted makes exactly the same point. I am sorry that the hon. Member who interrupted me appears to have been dormant during the first part of my speech. The letter continues:
The Government's proposals to cut the flat rate has destroyed the confidence of owners not only in Aberdeen but throughout the country, to modernise the fleet and to reward the industry which produces the cheapest food in the market with such a cut is shameful to


say the least. No thanks have been given to the industry for producing fish at such a low figure (in Aberdeen, 5·2d. per lb.) and the Government's action is a complete negation of the intention of the subsidy. The Government are being unrealistic in the assessment of the needs of the Aberdeen fishing industry"—
so is the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South. The letter does not say that; I do. It continues—
and their proposals are totally inadequate to deal with the situation in Aberdeen where fish prices are falling and operating costs are rising. The fishing industry is the only industry where higher costs cannot be met by extracting higher prices from consumers and it is equally clear that the fleets operating costs cannot be cut. The White Fish Authority's Scottish committee said a few weeks ago that Aberdeen still had the most economically run fleet in the United Kingdom.
It is clear that this new Scheme is wantonly regardless of its effect upon the rebuilding of the fishing fleets, which is an urgent concern of the Authority and of the fishing industry. There is a close and clear link between the damaging effects which the reduced subsidy will inflict and the urgent need not only to maintain but to increase and extend the fishing fleets. The White Fish Authority expressed that view in its current Report when it wrote:
Previous Reports … have described their concern … about the age of the Aberdeen trawling fleet, and their hope that the Grants and Loans Scheme would lead to a gradual replacement of the older vessels. So far these hopes have not been fulfilled.
Later, the same Report said:
… of the 186 near and middle water vessels now in it"—
the Aberdeen fleet—
seven-eighths are over 30 years old and over, half are over 40 years old.… The Transport and General Workers' Union, for their part, have urged the Authority to build vessels themselves and either operate them or charter them to private operators; and more recently the Scottish Trades Union Congress have made similar representations. The Authority are considering this proposal.
Local efforts to rehabilitate and extend the Aberdeen fleet will be frustrated if the owners cannot be assured of a reasonable profit from their fish, and this scheme will tend to deprive them of that. In a technical matter of this kind I prefer to rely upon the advice of experts. An important firm of trawler owners and fish salesmen in Aberdeen—Messrs. Wood and Bruce Limited—has written to

me a letter, dated 16th December, in which it says:
No doubt you are fully aware of the difficulties with which we are confronted in the running of our vessels meantime due to the rise in costs of coal and fishing gear and any representations you make in order to have the subsidy cut restored will be a very valuable service to the community as a whole.
In another letter the same firm says:
The trawling industry in Aberdeen, as you are very well aware, is meantime passing through a most difficult phase in its long and varied career. The present fleet is diminishing and we fear that in a very short time, owing to the increase of running costs, many more steam trawlers will go to the ship breakers. Our policy now is to endeavour to replace part of our fleet with new vessels but the present building costs …"—

Lady Tweedsmuir: On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. and learned Member to read such long extracts? The bulk of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech has consisted of reading extracts, and I always understood that it was the practice of this House that one should not read one's speech at great length.

Mr. Speaker: I understood that the hon. and learned Member was quoting from a document which he has. So long as it is not overdone, quotation is quite permissible.

Mr. Hughes: It was a quotation, Sir, and I was very careful to say on each occasion, "I quote," so that those who record our speeches would have no difficulty in knowing where the quotation began and ended.
The firm to which I was referring is in association with certain shipbuilding firms—the Minerva Fishing Company Limited, the Crusader Fishing Company Limited, and the Clova Fishing Company Limited. That firm, in conjunction with these companies, has planned to build a number of new trawlers for Aberdeen, but they say—and this is my whole argument—that unless they can be assured of a reasonable profit from the results of their fishing they will not be encouraged to build these ships.
So, as I said earlier, the two things are linked together. The building, the rehabilitation and the expansion of the Aberdeen fishing fleet depend on the possibility of the owners of the ships being able to get a reasonable profit from their fishing. It follows that if an


injurious scheme like this one is passed, and is given the force of law, it will prevent the owners from getting a reasonable profit from their ships and will prevent them from building ships. This Scheme is inimical to the trade and industry of Aberdeen, it is inimical to the fishing industry all over the United Kingdom, and I therefore exhort the House to reject it.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: Many hon. Members in this House, including myself, have an affection for the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), but I trust that he will forgive me if I do not follow him minutely on this occasion in the many ripples that he has made over this Scheme.
I think that it would be true to say that, with the exception of an hon. Member who represents a certain number of vessels which are extremely interested in the question of coal prices, on the whole, hon. Members in this House have not exactly welcomed this Scheme or thought that it was particularly desirable for all concerned. At the same time, I think that it is right to say that the way in which this Scheme comes to be presented to the House is rather strange. It is infrequent that we have a Scheme presented and so shortly afterwards a reconsideration of that Scheme and certain fundamental points in it altered, as in this case.
I make these observations because I believe that they do in fact prove the point that I wish chiefly to make this afternoon. That is that those who were considering this matter did not give it sufficient consideration in the first place, nor did they obtain sufficient evidence upon which to base the Scheme. I believe the fact that part of the Scheme is now altered—and this has certainly made it a better Scheme than the first one—is proof that that is the case. What puzzles me is that the Minister, in opening the debate, admitted, as I think he will agree, that the evidence upon which the Government had to rely in regard to the inshore fishing industry was scanty. I think he admitted that. He went a long way, for which I was very grateful, in stating that in the coming months he would examine every form of evidence that he could to see exactly how earnings

are related to costs in the inshore fishing industry.
The point that puzzles me is this. With the exception of the year 1955–56, for the four previous years the White Fish Authority had been obtaining from individual fishermen within the inshore fishing industry audited' accounts of their earnings, the costs of their landings and the profitability, where profit is obtained, together with—because individuals had been willing to supply them with it—the Inland Revenue receipts of the Income Tax paid upon those earnings.
The strange part about this is that although, as the Minister has stated, from last July this matter has been within the mind of the Ministry, the White Fish Authority, during the year 1955–56, has not for the first time asked individual men for that information or for the receipts, or examined their earnings, although they have done so in the four years previously. Either this is a criticism of the White Fish Authority or a criticism of the Ministry, or a criticism of both—it is certainly a criticism.
As I have said, I am extremely glad to know that this is not going to be the case in the future. I think that it is right to say here and now that I examined to the best of my ability, with the help of the fishermen concerned, the capacity of earning within the inshore fishing industry. It is upon that information that we are basing our views today as to whether we support or not this Scheme.
I propose to deal with one Inland Revenue account, and I am perfectly prepared to hand the whole of the papers to the Minister. The only reason why I am not quoting from it, as hon. Members will readily understand, is that to quote an actual income and to name an actual individual in this House is not exactly proper, but if any hon. Member—and I have the authority of the individual to say this—would like access to these documents, I am perfectly prepared to allow him to see them. In this case it will be found that in 1950 the amount of tax paid was about £128, which gives some idea of what was the earning capacity of the man. That has steadily come down—and this is a very good example of many cases—to a figure which in the year 1955–56 is estimated at somewhere in the region £5 15s. I have given that figure purely to show what the actual


earnings have been. One of the major reasons is the steadily increasing rise in price of the articles and goods that the men of the inshore fishing industry have to provide in order to carry on their daily job.
If we take the costs of 1950–1951 up to 1955, we find a steady increase in practically every article which they had to purchase. To give some idea of these figures, a net of about 180 yards in 1938 was costing £7 5s. It now costs £42. The rise has been pretty prodigious even since 1950. I will not weary the House by giving a great number of items, but I will give one more, namely, cork. In 1951, cork cost £3 19s. 6d. per cwt. It is now £7 3s. 1d. All these things show the same increases. I cannot understand why the Minister has been unable to obtain all these facts. They were given to the White Fish Authority by the appropriate authorities.
The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) was more or less right in suggesting that behind this Scheme is the hand of the Treasury more than the Minister. The matter should have been considered very much more thoroughly. Over the weekend, I thought it right to consult again the fishermen I have the honour to represent, and to gather what they felt about this Scheme and the immediate future. I have their authoritiy to say what they are prepared to do and to agree with.
They share with me the view that both the original Scheme and the Scheme in front of us were hastily conceived and rashly produced, and were not based upon sufficient evidence. On the other hand, they share with me approval of the fact that the Minister altered the previous Scheme and considerably improved it, presumably upon receipt of representations, and they hope he will be prepared between now and the end of June to give further consideration to the present Scheme. If the Minister is willing to go into the costs and find as much evidence as he can, we are prepared to give him every form of help in the shape of facts, costs and audited accounts upon which to base his calculations. The facts will speak for themselves.
We also hope that the Minister will go one stage further. This Scheme flows from the Act of 1953. Introducing the Second

Reading of that Measure, the Secretary of State for Scotland said:
Frankly, we do not sec at this moment the likelihood of being able to terminate this white fish subsidy in the very near future. Of course, it should be the ambition of any industry to be self-supporting, but up to date the money for this subsidy has been granted by Parliament under the Appropriation Acts, as it was the genuine hope at the time that it would be a temporary measure to assist the industry.
Now we feel that it cannot go on in that way, and that the right and proper thing to do is to ask the House to extend the white fish subsidy by statute."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th January, 1953; Vol. 510, c. 57.]
The principle underlying that speech was that the Minister was satisfied that inshore fishermen could not make a reasonable living without the payment of a subsidy to white fish, and that the subsidy would be paid and would not only he related to vessels which might then or in the future need reconditioning.
Provided that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who I understand is to reply, is prepared to state that that part of the speech made in January, 1953, by the Secretary of State' for Scotland still is the principle of Her Majesty's Government, together with what the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has stated about going into the facts and figures, the fishermen I saw—they were the majority of the fishermen in my constituency—will support the Scheme. I shall want an assurance to that effect from the Under-Secretary of State, and I trust he will give it to me.

Mr. Edward Evans: Before the hon. Gentleman conies to the conclusion of his speech, may I ask whether he is seriously telling the House that the hard-boiled, hard-headed Cornish fishermen that I know very well are going to take a nebulous promise from the Government that in future the Government will go into the figures, although they had an opportunity to do so in the past, and that the fishermen have asked the hon. Member in that case to support the Scheme? I hardly believe it, Sir.

Mr. Marshall: The hon. Member and I have known each other for nearly eleven years. I am satisfied that he sincerely believes what I have said to be true. His quarrel is that he finds it surprising. I can tell him, so did I. Had my fishermen felt the other way round I was prepared to vote against the Scheme. My hon.


Friends know that well. I took the normal steps in case I found it necessary to do so. I hope that other hon. Members, who do not happen to represent fishing ports will not feel that all those taking part in this debate are only raising constituency points.
In an enormous number of cases the number of fishermen in a constituency is extremely small but many hon. Members feel that this matter is important because it affects an industry which produces some of our finest men who are an example to other men in the United Kingdom, and which, when our country has been attacked from without, has played a vital and dangerous part in the defence of the realm. Most of us who have been privileged to see how that part was played are not likely to forget it. From a purely economic angle, prime fish must be produced by the inshore fishermen in order to give variety to the diet of the people of the United Kingdom and to maintain the appetite for fish from the larger sources.
All these facts make this not a minor but very much a major debate. I sincerely trust that the Joint Under-Secretary will be able to give me the further assurance in his winding-up speech. If he does so, I will support this Measure.

Mr. Edward Evans: Shame.

Mr. Marshall: If he does not, I shall not support it.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Younger: The tone of this debate is very fitting for the closing days of this autumn sitting of Parliament. We have spent practically the whole of the autumn asking ourselves why the Chancellor brought in his Budget—and I think he surprised hon. Members on that side as much as those on this—and it is fitting that we should now ask why the Minister has brought in this Scheme. I do not think I have ever heard a Measure receive so little support from both sides of the House as has this one.
It is clear, judging from the balance of speakers, that it is particularly the smaller ports and those with the smaller vessels which feel most keenly about this Scheme. I represent Grimsby, a large port and one which contains both those elements which are relatively well-

favoured by the Scheme, namely, the steam trawlers, and a considerable number of the smaller vessels—the seine netters—whose owners feel that they have had a raw deal. I suppose it is possible to have different opinions about this Scheme according to which interest one has and how one comes off under it but, after this debate, one thing is in no doubt at all—the Scheme is a proper muddle.
There has been this change of mind by the Government in the space of a fortnight. That, in itself, is strong evidence that they reached their original conclusion upon inadequate evidence. After listening to the Minister, I am still very uncertain just what evidence he had before introducing the original Scheme. I am even more uncertain as to what was the fresh evidence which induced him to change his mind. It is the popular belief in my constituency that he got virtually no additional evidence at all, but merely gave way to a certain amount of political pressure. Therefore, irrespective of one's views about the merits of the Scheme, one can have no doubt that it has been put forward in a most unconvincing way.
We have had complaints from Scotland, from Cornwall and from other parts of the United Kingdom about lack of consultation with those most concerned in the industry. Dissatisfaction has also been expressed to me by members of the British Trawler Federation, which body, as the Minister has told us, he consulted in July and again in November. One of the things I learnt was that, during those consultations, the impression was certainly created that the Minister could not possibly ask the House to provide any more money than that asked for under the original Scheme of 1st December. The Federation was, therefore, astonished when, without further communication, it found that the Minister was suddenly able to produce more money by 14th December. It feels somewhat aggrieved at that. It gives the Federation the impression that its discussions were, in fact, proceeding on quite a wrong basis.
I am not complaining—far be it from me to complain—about the concession which was made between 1st and 14th December. The figures and costings mentioned by many hon. Members today


show quite clearly that the concession was badly needed, and that a figure such as the present one—or even a better figure—should have appeared in the Scheme all the time. What I say about the Minister suggesting that he could not provide any more money is relevant to one of his contentions, when he repudiated the idea that one section of the industry was being made to pay for the concession to the other. If it is indeed the fact that he has a certain ceiling of money at his disposal, and if, within that figure, he is to give additional concessions to one section and apply a reduction to the others, it is ludicrous to suggest that people will not assume that one section is being asked to pay for the concession to the other.
It is very hard to see the policy behind a decision of this kind. We all agree that there should be inducements to re-equip ships and build new ones, but this Measure will encourage those concerned to retain the oldest and most uneconomical ships, and make it less attractive for them to go in for the smaller, modern motor vessels. I can well understand the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) putting in her modest good word—almost the only good word the Scheme has had—because she represents a constituency from which sail a very large number of very out-of-date, old steam trawlers.
Unfortunately, we in Grimsby have our share of those old trawlers. We are not proud of them. We want to see them replaced by modern motor vessels as quickly as may be, and it seems an extraordinary policy on the part of the Minister, if he is operating under a ceiling, to choose to give that particular concession to one section at the expense of the other. If he feels it necessary, as it may well be, to give a concession to keep the old steam trawlers for a certain period, it should not be done—as I believe it is being done—at the expense of the section that needs encouraging.
It has been said that no fishing industry debate is complete without reference to the heroism of those who go to sea. I must say that I often find my lip curling at some of the fishing industry's advertisements, from which it would appear that every trawler owner and fishmonger daily faces the risks of gales at sea but this afternoon we really are concerned with those who actually go to sea. It should be remembered that those who go to sea

in the very small ships are paid by shares, they are most dependent on the proceeds of their catch and get no remuneration in the form of fixed wages.
It is one of the unpleasant aspects of the Scheme that it seems to hit most those who actually do the job themselves, and to hit many of the owners who are seeking most earnestly to modernise their vessels, as against those who are content to cling to old-fashioned equipment. For those reasons, combined with the many complaints about inadequate consultation and representation, I hope that the House will reject the Scheme.

7.6 p.m.

Sir Robert Boothby: After all that has been said in this debate, it is not necessary for me to detain the House for more than a few minutes to add a footnote, as it were, and to emphasise one or two of the points made by hon. Members on both sides.
I cannot believe that it is or ever was the intention of the Minister of Agriculture or of the Secretary of State for Scotland to damage the inshore fishing industry. I do not think they wanted to do that. Hon. Members opposite have asked continuously for explanations as to why this or that has been done, and why this Scheme was produced and modified and so on. The explanation is, I think, perfectly simple. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, as he always does, said to the Ministers concerned, "Cut the subsidy by £X." The Ministers said, "We cannot go quite as far as that." The Chancellor said, "Then cut it by a bit less—but cut it you must."
The Ministers then brought out this Scheme, without adequate consultation, I must say, with anyone concerned in the industry. There was a hell of a row upstairs. The Ministers then went back to the Chancellor and said, "The boys upstairs won't stand for this." And the Chancellor said, "I can't put it all back, but I will put back 50 per cent." That is where we are at the moment. I think that is a fairly accurate story, and the story that goes on in Government circles all the year and all the time. I do not think that there is any great mystery about it.
What I do complain about is that such a short time was given to the Scottish Inshore White Fish Producers' Association to produce a case. It has been said,


and it is perfectly true, that the Association first heard of the Scheme on 11th November. On 21st November—after it had called a meeting as quickly as it could on 18th November—that organisation was told that it had to have any case, and any deputation it was prepared to send, over and done with before the end of the month—otherwise the white fish subsidy would be abolished altogether. That was far too short a time. It gave the Association no opportunity to consult the industry, the fishermen, or to prepare a case. The whole thing was far too much rushed. I blame the Treasury for that—again. Indeed I blame the Treasury for almost everything that goes wrong with this country—and always have.
I want for a moment or two to deal in particular with the vessels under 70 ft. I am chiefly concerned with those because I have no trawlers in my constituency. The statistics have been taken by the Ministry from a sample based on a very few boats, and I claim that those statistics are not accurate. Even if they were, they reveal a net profit of only £200, or 2½ per cent., and that is not good enough. It certainly does not justify a reduction in the subsidy. If anything, it justifies an increase. Secondly, the alleged increase in gross profits takes no account either of the increase in expenses or the increase in the general catching power of the white fish inshore fleet.
Finally, it can be shown that the average labour share—the individual earnings, in fact—has gone down by about 10 per cent. in the inshore white fishing industry over the past year. I repeat, the average labour share in the boats of the inshore white fishing industry has gone down over the last two years. None of us has had much time to produce any figures, but even if the earnings of these share fishermen have remained stationary—and nobody suggests that they have done more than that over the past 12 months—they are no longer competitive with earnings in industry ashore. There is a constant tug away from the fishing fleets of Scotland towards the hydro-electric scheme, towards the big industries in the central belt of Scotland and towards other factories in the South. Unless these fellows can be given a chance—it may be, only a gambler's chance—to make a decent

living occasionally, they will chuck the sea and will go to industry where jobs await them; and, as has been pointed out already, once they get there they will never come back. That is what I am worried about.
As for the actual cuts themselves, as far as the inshore men are concerned—the under 70-ft. boats—the Minister's original proposal brought the subsidy down from 10d. to 6d. a stone. Now, after the row, we have gone back to 8d. But all this has happened within the space of a fortnight. Even this afternoon the Minister was not absolutely clear what it was all about. He said that he would have to go off and do some sums again. We shall all have to do that. I suggest, however, that we ought all to have done these sums, and the inshore fishermen ought to have been given the chance of doing them, before any Scheme was produced.
The fact is that, as far as I can make out, under the Scheme about £100,000 is to be clawed off the Scottish motor fishing fleet—

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: It is £91,000.

Sir R. Boothby: Very well, £91,000—for no reason whatsoever; and approximately £500,000 is to be dished out to obsolete steam drifters all round our coasts. That is very bad policy indeed, and not in the interests of the fishing industry. The hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) will agree with me that the Aberdeen trawler fleet is a disgrace, and that the best thing that could happen to it would be for it to be scrapped or put to the bottom of the sea. If one goes around Aberdeen Harbour, one is ashamed that chaps should be asked to go to sea, very often in dangerous weather, in such ghastly vessels. Instead of bolstering up these obsolete things, as the Government now propose, they should have a scrap-and-rebuild scheme to compensate the owners for scrapping these vessels and building modern motor craft, which have already been a tremendous success, as every hon. Member knows, out of both Hull and Grimsby.
The future of the deep sea industry lies in modern, up-to-date—they are expensive, I admit—motor craft, and not with these obsolete steam trawlers, with


their great smoke stacks, which with every year that passes are becoming increasingly dangerous. And yet these are the things which are being singled out by the Minister for subsidy.

Mr. Amory: I could not agree more about the desirability of replacing the old coal burners—that is absolutely our policy. My hon. Friend will remember that in my speech I emphasised that the yards were now full. These boats are being built as fast as they can be. We wish they could be built faster still. In the meantime, however, it is important that we should keep the old coal burners operating to ensure our supply of fish.

Sir R. Boothby: I suppose it is necessary, but it is a pity nevertheless. And it is even more a pity to take money away from my inshore fishermen to do it. If the Government had not done this, I should not worry quite so much. The sooner they bring it to an end the better; and the faster we can get on with the new boats, the better it will be.
Altogether, the Government have not given any cause for great confidence in their policy for the fishing industry as a whole. They do not seem to know where they are going, or where they are trying to get, or how to get there. The only hope for the inshore fishing industry lies in the development, for which some of us have striven for years, of diesel-engine dual-purpose craft. That is what we have now got in the north-east of Scotland. The purpose of these craft is that they can be converted from seine netting for white fish to drift netting for herring. I have had to fight for this for over twenty years, and now we are getting it. By and large the steam drifter has gone out, and we now have these dual-purpose craft.
Then, what has happened? The boats have just left the worst autumn herring fishing on record in the country's history. It has been an absolute catastrophe at Yarmouth and Lowestoft. The Russian market alone was waiting for 75,000 barrels, and we have been able to cure 8,000 barrels—that is all. Now, these fellows having gone North in great despair, every one of them with heavy losses, wondering where they are to get the money back, if they can get anything back. Supposing they decide to go over to the seine net white fishing, and try their hands at that during the stormy winter months, what

will they find? As they steamed up from Yarmouth and Lowestoft to Scotland, the Government slashed the subsidy on white fish by 50 per cent. It is bound to take the heart out of these fellows. I ask the Government, what are they to do?
In thirty-one years in this House, I have never known a time when the inshore fishing industry gave cause for greater anxiety. It really is a worry, for it is now a question of survival. Unless something fairly drastic is done to keep these young men going to sea, the industry is likely to collapse altogether within the next three or four years. Once they go, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) told the House, they will not come back. And yet this is the moment that the Government have chosen to attack them.
I repeat what everybody else has said, that both these men and the fish they catch are essential for the security and welfare of the country. It is not an import. It is something for which we do not have to pay dollars. It is something we can produce ourselves; and if it is produced well, as it is, by the inshore men—I have said this often enough and I say it again—really good fresh fish is the best food known to man, nutritive and consoling in every way.
I beg hon. Members, and the Ministers particularly, to realise that we face a crisis in this industry. Had it not been for the assurance given by my right hon. Friend when opening the debate, that he was prepared to consider the representations which have been made unanimously, and from both sides of the House this afternoon, and to reconsider the whole question, I should certainly have had to go into the Division Lobby against the Government tonight. As it is, I will abstain, in hope—but with no undue sense of confidence.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I want to say a personal word at once. I am going to direct much of what I have to say to the Secretary of State for Scotland and those who work with him. I am no Scot, but I speak with the consent of my right hon. and hon. Friends from Scotland—and I am one of the vice-presidents of the Clyde Fishermen's Association. Moreover, I plead guilty—if that is the right word—to my wife's having a one-third interest in one of those small


inshore boats. I consider I am no more debarred by that from speaking in this debate than an hon. Member would be debarred from speaking about agricultural subsidies by owning an undivided third of a cow.
This is a pretty kettle of fish if ever there was one. I am not going back through the long history of this matter, but I should like to take one date in what may now be called, I think, the inter-Budget months. It is very fashionable to talk about the inter-war years; let us have the inter-Budget months for a change. On 25th July, as usual just before a Scheme expired, the Government came down to ask for a new Scheme which was simply a continuance of the old one. At that time the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food promised another Scheme after the Recess, saying,
… when we will take account of the coal prices increase and of any other changes that have taken place in the industry, in the past twelve months."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th July, 1955; Vol. 544, c. 881.]
He had at the time in his possession, as one can see by the dates, though it had not yet been printed, the last Report of the White Fish Authority. Not a word was said then or in that debate about reducing payments to inshore fishermen. The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie), with so much of whose speech I found myself in entire agreement today, pointed out, quite rightly, that the subsidies at that time were only just adequate to provide the necessary assistance for inshore fishermen. He made then as he made today his suggestion that there should be a single flat rate per stone landed instead of the voyage subsidies and the day subsidies.
I call the attention of the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson Stewart), to this. It was at that time that the Joint Under-Secretary of State promised to examine other rising costs, that is to say, other rising costs besides those of coal. The hon. Member for Banff had called pointed attention to the rise in the price of gear, net, ropes, and so on, which are just the things which concern the inshore fishermen. The Joint Under-Secretary of State said:

We do not get accounts from these little fishermen … we cannot follow what they do …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th July, 1955; Vol. 544, c. 892.]
I ask the hon. Gentleman, what steps has he taken to carry out that undertaking to examine the costs of the inshore fishermen of Scotland? I am going to tell him now how the matter looks.
On 10th November, as we all know, the Scottish Office opened fire on the Scottish Inshore Fish Producers Association in Aberdeen, timing the first gun to go off with grisly inappropriateness on Armistice Day, and put before the Association what was substantially the first scheme, and its letter continued by saying:
It is emphasised that Ministers regard the payments they now propose"—
these are the payments in the scheme which has since been withdrawn—
as the most that can be justified to Parliament.
Under this threat the Scottish Inshore Fish Producers Association was compelled at very short notice to take the steps we have heard of, and so hardly was it driven by the Government that even in Aberdeen, the most Godly city, its final statement was prepared on the Sabbath, 27th November.
It was only one day before that, at one o'clock p.m., on Saturday, 26th November, that the Secretary of State for Scotland remembered that there are two sides to Scotland and that nobody had said a word to the Clyde fishermen about it, and a telephone call was put through at that remarkable hour calling their attention to the fact—this was on Saturday at one o'clock—that any representations they desired to make, in a matter which vitally affected their livelihood, had to be made by 30th November, that was, the Wednesday.
What was the reason? I should like to know the reason. Did the right hon. Gentleman, as I suspect, completely forget the existence of the Clyde fishermen? Or am I to suppose that he was taking a belated revenge for a spot of trouble in Inverary in 1752 when another James Stewart called James of the Glen, was hanged after a trial by a jury of Campbells—the right hon. Gentleman's letter was addressed to Campbeltown—and with the MacCailean Mhor there to see they dealt with him well and truly? Perhaps


that was the explanation? At any rate, that was the information they had at that time.
Let us just see. They had the last report of the White Fish Authority—that carried the matter up to March, 1954—and such evidence as there was in that report was founded on a sample which the Authority said then was too small to be relied on. That was the substratum of what they quoted when called on for their evidence. As for the rest, they had some evidence, slight and insufficient, and, indeed, contradicted by other evidence, as to the gross receipts.
But what about the rise in costs that the Joint Under-Secretary of State had promised to look into in July? So effective had been his search, so protracted, they did not say a word about them, though they were obviously a most relevant factor in the whole business. If in a matter of this sort the Government do nothing, one can perhaps, be compassionate, but if acting on an entire lack of sufficient information, the more insufficient because that promise has not been fulfilled, they then proceed to order a Scheme which cuts into the very livelihood of these men, then indeed they have something to answer for.
During this debate only one speaker on the other side of the House has given any support to the Government, and that was very qualified support indeed, and it was given by the hon. Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir), who represents a half of Aberdeen. If the Government bring forward a Scheme like that, there must be something wrong somewhere. I have listened to speech after speech from the benches opposite, all critical of it, and I agree with every word that was said not only by the hon. Member for Banff but by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Sir R. Boothby)—with only one exception, that at the end of their speeches they said that the Scheme was all wrong, it was doing the wrong thing in the wrong way, but they would not vote against it but proposed only to obstain. I would urge hon. Gentlemen opposite to have a little more courage when their constituents' livelihood is concerned, and to have the courage to vote against what they know to be quite wrong.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman not agree that the result of voting against this Motion would be that the fishermen would not have a subsidy at all?

Mr. Mitchison: No. I thought that would come from somebody. I expected that it would come from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, but I have taken the trouble to inform myself, and what requires to be done is this. The figures of the 1d. subsidies in various forms of landed fish require to be altered and put up by at least 2d. It is perfectly true that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite may be somewhat inadequately staffed at this hour, but even they, I imagine, could manage to go downstairs, alter those figures in manuscript, put down a suitable Motion for tomorrow, and come here tomorrow to be greeted with acclamation over their repentance and over some measure of justice, at least. There is not the least difficulty about it.
I come next to what happened between this effervescence of Schemes and what I was talking about just now. There came the Budget. I find nothing to quarrel with in the diagnosis which the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire has just given us. Undoubtedly, the Chancellor had cast his spring optimism away and had assumed the cloak of anti-inflationary pessimism. Was he not about to rescue the country by imposing a Purchase Tax on pots and pans, on mops and brushes, and even on pedal-operated hygienic dustbins? Surely, the fishermen must pay their share. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman went to see him, reminded him that in July the Government had promised to do something for steam trawlers, that they had promised to do that after the Recess, and how were they to carry it out if the Chancellor insisted upon this unreasonable financial policy?
Here again I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire. The Chancellor no doubt said, looking as ruthless as he could manage, "Screw it out of one of the others." Who were the smallest, the ones most likely to make the least noise in this matter and at the same time the most numerous and most hard put to it to earn their living on the sea? They were the inshore fishermen.

Sir R. Boothby: In fact, they made the biggest noise.

Mr. Mitchison: That might be because they had most excellent help from the hon. Member, and if he would only vote at the end of the debate as well as he has spoken in it these people would have nothing whatever to complain about.
Now we are told that the effect of the Scheme is not to take the money out of the inshore fishermen to meet the claim of an increase in voyage and day subsidy for the steam trawlers, but that each must be considered separately. Somebody said that the Minister had gone away to do a sum. So he did, and he handed over to me the result. I can only assure the right hon. Gentleman that it was an attempt to square an error by a little erroneous arithmetic. He will find that he was £13,000 out—no doubt quite a trifle in these matters; but that is the way it is. The right hon. Gentleman came here not even knowing the effect of his own Scheme in this matter. The effect is that it gives some additional assistance to the steam trawlers in Aberdeen, of which a great deal more than three-quarters, indeed I expect nearly the whole lot, are pre-1920 boats, over thirty-five years old.
These are the boats which it is the policy of the Government to have scrapped and replaced by modern boats. I entirely agree with the policy, but surely the right thing to do is to add to the grants for building. If there is not space enough in the shipyards now, the answer is not to come down on the inshore fishermen in order to keep the old crocks going until proper ships can be built for the job. Again, I would think it was unwise to send men to sea too often and too far in boats of that kind. I was not at all surprised to hear that some of these boats might not now be fit for distant fishing and would have to come nearer shore.
I turn now to the inshore fishermen themselves. We have been told already that the result of the past year, or of the past few months since this new promise was made in July, 1955, has been no improvement at all on 1954. On the contrary, men who could not make their living out of herring fishing have been driven now to try white fish and have got remarkably little out of it.
Even if the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite lacked other things, they were at least presented with quite a number of accounts from different boats and different statements of what had happened. If they did not obtain any more it was entirely their own fault, since they did not give enough notice either in Aberdeen or Campbeltown. They could not obtain the figures they wanted. They made this Scheme without any idea of what the fishermen wanted and without any idea of the effect that these reduced payments might have on the fishermen.
Although the number of steam trawlers is quite considerable in Aberdeen, and of course they are larger boats, yet the number of men actually engaged in inshore fishing in Scotland is far larger than those engaged in the steam trawlers. Those are the men who will be affected by this Scheme. By now hon. and right hon. Members opposite have surely had enough evidence, not only from those who made representations before the Scheme was put forward, but from those hon. and right hon. Members who have spoken in this debate. Surely they have had enough evidence by now to know that what they are doing will break the backs of men who are already in the gravest difficulties.
Hon. and right hon. Members opposite must know that in Scotland, as far as Stornaway, these men are working on loan and grant, some on herrings and some on white fish and some on both. At the moment those loans cannot be repaid. The interest on the loans cannot be repaid in many cases, and the Herring Industry Board and the White Fish Authority are already closing in on the boats. Men who have spent their lives in this business and have unrivalled knowledge of fishing are being driven to sell their boats for no figure at all, or to hand them over to the Board and the Authority to whom they have mortagaged them, and to give up that on which they have spent their skill and their lives.
These are small, hard-working men, but they have their pride too, and they get the best fish that the nation needs. They do it by going out in all weathers in small boats. They have experienced every kind of difficulty. Their nets and their gear are at risk. These go up and up in price, and modern methods of fishing make the use of them even harder and more risky. The result is that all


these men are now facing the prospect of being driven out of their jobs.
What are the Government going to destroy if they carry out this Scheme? They will destroy not merely these inshore fisheries but these communities on the coast of Scotland which have their history and their pride. These communities have served their country in war as they have served it in peace, and they have wrestled with the sea for their living for years beyond memory. Are the Government really minded to wreck them? They will wreck them quickly if this Scheme is adopted. Why wait six months until the end of June? These men will be out of the picture by then. They may be in Glasgow by then, or in some other job locally or they may have cone south. They cannot hold on to this kind of fishing for another six months to allow Ministers to have consultations and rectify mistakes which ought never to have been made.
There are times when a Government should have some courage. There is not an immense amount of money involved here. The Government should withdraw this Scheme. They should tell us that they will withdraw it and bring in a Scheme tomorrow to bring back the 2d., or whatever it is, on the landing payments and, having done that, they should say that they will look at the whole matter again. Who or what ought to be put at risk? Should it be these men, or should it be the good name of a number of Ministers who have not consulted anybody, who have made a mess of the whole business, and who brought in a Scheme on 1st December which they could not defend and which they had to give up after they had appeared before one of those secret courts of which we hear so much nowadays—the 1922 Committee?
They came back at the very last moment with this Scheme and got their hon. Friends to say, "You can talk as you like. It is too late. We have left it so late that nothing can be rescued now." Are those the people who ought to be protected at all costs? Are those the people whose good name will be preserved? And at what cost? At the cost of driving out of their life's occupation hundreds of thousands of humble men

round our coasts who have wrestled with the sea in peace-time, fought for their country in war-time, and made in their own villages a life and a community of which we ought to be proud.
I would say this to right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Get up now. Spare yourself the business of handing out bouquets to your hon. Friends who so cordially disagreed with you. Simply get up and say, "We never make an error, or hardly never. This time we have made one. We are wrong. We are not going to sacrifice human beings and human communities to our obstinacy. We propose to withdraw the Scheme." Let the Government go downstairs and make a few pen and ink alterations, and they will get the new Scheme—not this one—by acclamation tomorrow.

7.42 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Henderson Stewart): Replying to a debate of this nature is not exactly an enviable job for anybody. It has been a case of cannons to the right of me, cannons behind me, and cannons in front of me. However, I must recognise that we had at least one friendly fusillade, that from my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir).
I should like also to mention the friendly maiden speech by the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Currie). I am sure we all enjoyed his contribution. He had some remarks to make which did not altogether coincide with the view of the Government, but he put his points with great delicacy and effectiveness, and I am sure that we shall listen to him with pleasure hereafter.
Loud noises have been made from various quarters, and there has been some exaggeration, as from the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), if I may say so, with respect, but, on the whole, it has been a friendly bombardment. My hon. Friends who have criticised have done so more in sorrow than in anger, and it is in that spirit that I shall endeavour to make an effective reply on behalf of the Government.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: When the hon. Gentleman remembers the speech of his hon. Friend


the Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall), will he also remember that in Cornwall we have a song which runs:
And shall Trelawney die?
Here's twenty thousand Cornishmen
Will know the reason why!

Mr. Stewart: That is all very interesting, but I am not quite sure what its relevance is to the debate.
The debate seems to have been marked more than usual by questions from both sides of the House. We have repeatedly been asked: why have the Government made this proposal? Why must there be this Scheme now? What evidence have the Government considered in arriving at their decision, and, in any case, what is the Government's long-term policy? Is this an indication of some particular change? As I see it, my task tonight—I hope I shall not occupy very long, because I know that one or two of my hon. Friends would like to say a word or two before we finish is, if I can, to explain simply and frankly the reasons which led the Government to their present conclusion. I submit that they are reasons which would have led any Government confronted with present-day problems and the facts at our disposal to have acted in the same way.
Hon. Members may not agree with all that I am about to say. I am endeavouring merely to show them step by step how we arrived at our conclusions. As my right hon. Friend said most specifically at the beginning, we intend with regard to the inshore boats to undertake a new investigation. Our intention is to gather from all sources in the course of the next five or six months whatever fresh information is available, and to examine it sympathetically, urgently and with a genuine desire to incorporate the findings of all that in the new Schemes which must be brought about before the end of August.

Mr. Mitchison: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, I hope he will answer the question which I asked him. At column 894 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, on 25th July, 1955, he gave an assurance that questions relating to a rise in costs affecting the inshore boats would be examined. Has that undertaking been carried out? If so, with what result?

Mr. Stewart: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me, I am coming

to that. I am hoping not to detain the House too long.
It was said by someone that there has been a proper muddle. That is not true at all. It has been said that we have rushed into this. I admit that there is probably something in that argument—not that we have rushed into it, but, rather, that we have rushed other people into it. I think that was the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Sir R. Boothby).
I will tell the House exactly what has happened. I am talking now for Scotland, because I was asked particularly to deal with Scotland. We gave the Scottish Inshore White Fish Producers Association, which covers all inshore bodies in Scotland, the time limit which has been announced in the House. We wrote to the Association on 10th November. Its representatives came to us on 28th November. One may say that that is somewhat short notice, but it is not very short. Where we fell down here—I make a frank admission to the House—is that by mistake, for which I apologise, we did not, at the same time, notify the subsidiary inshore fishing associations, such as that on the Clyde, and that on the Forth, for which I have sometimes been asked to speak.
I apologise for the mistake, which was one made in our office, and I undertake that we shall not make that mistake again. However, I want to emphasise that the general body representing the inshore fishermen in Scotland had reasonable, if not over-generous, notice of the matter.

Sir R. Boothby: Eighteen days?

Mr. Stewart: I am prepared to listen to hon. Members, and to listen sympathetically, when they say that is not long enough. I give an assurance that in the future we shall recall that view and endeavour on every occasion to give longer notice.
I will come in a moment to the actual representations made to us by the inshore fishermen. However, the case has been put in the course of the debate for not only inshore fishermen, but for other sections of the industry. As the House know, in this matter we have three sets of boats to think about. We have the middle water steam vessels, the middle water motor vessels, and the inshore


vessels. I do not wish to detain the House, but perhaps I might summarise the situation with regard to each of them.
In the case of the steam vessels, the subsidy, as every hon. Member has said, was never intended to eliminate all losses. The purpose has been to keep a reasonable number of these old vessels operating until they can be replaced by more efficient vessels, towards the cost of which replacement the Government, of course, have made and are making generous grants and loans. There is no dispute in the House about that. We all agree that in Aberdeen and elsewhere these older vessels should gradually be moved out of commission and they are moving out at the rate of about 70 a year and have been doing so over the last few years.
That is not an unreasonable rate of retirement for these older, uneconomic vessels. If that continues over the next few years—and as they are now being replaced at a considerable speed—in a reasonable time we shall have an efficient fleet.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Are they being replaced as quickly as they go out of commission?

Mr. Stewart: As the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) knows, here, as in every other matter affecting fishing, conditions vary at every port. In Aberdeen, they are not being replaced quickly enough, but the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) gave figures showing considerable progress and great enterprise in Lowestoft and elsewhere. One would hope that the enterprise in some areas can be copied everywhere, particularly in Aberdeen itself.
On estimates which the industry has not been able to challenge, steam vessels in the United Kingdom as a whole—in Aberdeen the figure is not quite so good—are expected to do no worse under the new proposals than they did in 1954, the rise in costs being compensated by the disappearance of a number of the most inefficient vessels and increased catches and earnings by the remainder. I said that that fairly favourable picture for the steam vessels in the United Kingdom as a whole is not quite reflected in the Aberdeen position. As my noble Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South knows, two years ago Aberdeen had a much

better year than was had by steam vessels in other parts of the country and again we see the conflict of experience, the change of experience in one area from another.
Surely the House will agree that in setting out a Scheme of this kind, despite the eloquent plea of my noble Friend, it is not possible to have regional arrangements. We must have a level scheme for subsidies for the various grades of vessels and to make it different would be very much to complicate it. Since it is a level scheme for all parts of the country, two years ago Aberdeen derived more advantage from it than other parts of the country and this year it seems that Aberdeen will do less well. It is a pity, but there are ups and downs whenever one is involved in subsidies. The best answer with which all hon. Members will agree is, if we can, to get the industry prosperous and so altogether to avoid subsidies.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Does the Joint Under-Secretary think it is right to take 1954 as a year on which to base costing, because it was an exceptionally cold year? Equally, in referring to Aberdeen, should we not take account of the fact that it is the only port where prices are falling?

Mr. Stewart: My noble Friend is perfectly correct. Nineteen fifty-four was a year when the climate induced larger consumption of fish. This year, when the weather was very hot, consumption was less. Despite the unfortunate strike in Aberdeen, this year will not be so bad in terms of total landings as was first thought to be likely.
Motor vessels—I am talking about motor vessels generally—have never been meant to stay on subsidy for long. The whole purpose of introducing new motor vessels, with which all parties on all sides of the House would agree, was that we could quickly get rid of the subsidy, at any rate in that sector. It would be disastrous if any section of the House were to take the view, or were to press the Government with the policy, that we must continue paying subsidies to new and up-to-date motor vessels. That is not a tenable proposition and most of us would agree that it is not tenable.
It would be wrong to be giving grants and loans for the building of new vessels which could not operate without subsidy. Motor vessels over 70 feet in length made


an average profit of nearly £300 per vessel in 1954; I am giving United Kingdom figures. Their gross earnings have steadily risen since then and they are expected to be better this year. I recognise that costs have risen and the figures which have been given today by several hon. Members, particularly by one or two of my hon. Friends, have been of great value and I assure them that those individual examples are being noted and will be most carefully considered.
I come to a matter which has exercised the keenest attention and, naturally, the warmest sympathy of the House, namely, the situation of inshore fishing. I speak here with a good deal of personal sympathy, because I have represented an inshore fishing constituency for 23 years.

Mr. David Griffiths: Why?

Mr. Mitchison: Before the Joint Under-Secretary leaves the question of rising costs, will he please tell the House what he did to carry out his undertaking to investigate these costs? He seems unduly pleased with the scraps of information which he has received today.

Mr. Stewart: The question which the hon. and learned Member for Kettering has put refers directly and solely to inshore fishing. He will realise that I have got to that stage of my remarks when I am dealing precisely with that and I will, of course, answer his question.
Let me clear up the misunderstanding which was probably a slip of the tongue by one hon. Member. We do not have, as the House has heard today, properly audited accounts for every inshore fishing vessel. Why that should be so is quite clear. In Scotland, out of about 1,600 vessels, about 1,000 are under 35 ft. The great bulk are little boats, some of them working part-time. The proportion in England is roughly the same.
When, last year, the White Fish Authority proposed to make regulations requiring certain records to be kept—this is part of the answer to the hon. And learned Member for Kettering—the Authority issued draft regulations and the Fisheries Organisation Society, which represents certain inshore fishermen in England and Wales, objected on the grounds that the keeping of such records which prove unduly burdensome.
Every one of us who represents a fishing constituency, particularly in Scotland, knows that the men with the little boats do not keep accounts, and to impose a regulation that they must keep accounts would be unduly burdensome. A large number of the little boats did not come within the accountancy survey. The thing to do, in practice, as the White Fish Authority attempted in 1953, is to cover the larger of the inshore boats.

Mr. Edward Evans: The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) knocked the bottom out of that argument, because he based the whole of his speech on the Inland Revenue accounts of his constituents.

Mr. Duthie: Will not the Under-Secretary agree that in every Scottish port the fish salesmen's record of sales and records of the boats figures would give that information?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, but I am sure that my hon. Friend knows, also, speaking again about Scotland, that about 90 per cent. of the total inshore white fish caught comes from the relatively larger inshore vessels, and that the great bulk of the other vessels, nearly 90 per cent., catch about 10 per cent. of the total landings. All I am saying is that the House should not expect this Government, or any other Government, to be able to get detailed figures from all the little inshore boats; but, clearly, we ought to be able to get better figures for the larger inshore boats. That is what my right hon. Friend today said was being done.
In Scotland, we have already taken action upon this matter. When we met the inshore fishermen's associations they offered to co-operate with us in getting fuller figures. We accepted their offer. We have written to them, and we are in contact with them now with a view to extending the range of our actual accountancy reports.

Mr. Mitchison: The hon. Gentleman has really not answered the question I asked him. He gave an undertaking to the House that he would investigate the rise in costs of nets, gears, and so on. I really want to know what steps he has taken to carry out that undertaking.

Mr. Stewart: All right; there is nothing for the hon. and learned Member to worry about. I am not running away


from anything and I have an answer if he would only allow me to reach it in due course. I will gladly deal with costs, and I will deal with costs right away if the hon. and learned Member wants me to.
We made inquiries. As the hon. and learned Member knows, we have fishery officers all round the coast. I think I speak also for my right hon. Friend in saying that we have in the last few months been making very close investigation into these various rising costs. While it is perfectly true that the costs in a good many directions have risen and thus made the task of fishermen the more burdensome, it would not be proper, in a debate of this kind, were I not to indicate to the House that not all costs have risen.
May I just give to the House one or two facts which have emerged from investigations we have recently made? I am speaking for Scotland.

Sir R. Boothby: Is not my hon. Friend going to say where my tongue slipped? He said that I had made a slip of the tongue.

Mr. Stewart: It was a slip of the tongue, I think, when my hon. Friend said that the White Fish Authority had made a profit-and-loss investigation in 1954 or 1952, when, in fact, it was 1953. It was not very important.
Let me give the House some other figures, of costs. I do not attach too much importance to this, but on the other hand, I invite the House seriously to balance the one set of figures as against the other. The figures I am about to quote were sent to us recently by our fishery officers at various ports. At Scottish inshore ports the cost of diesel oil at 1s. 2d. to 1s. 6d. a gallon is the same now as it was at the beginning of last year. These are reports we have got from our fishery officers. If any hon. Member is able to give us information that in his port the figures are different, we shall, of course, examine it.

Mr. G. R. Howard: These figures have already been made available. When I attended with the deputation from the Fisheries Organisation Society some time ago, the figures for diesel oil were given as: 1953, 1s. 4d. a gallon; 1954, 1s. 6½d. 1955, 1s. 8½d.

Mr. Stewart: I think the House will again see that this is not a matter on which anybody can generalise. It would be quite wrong for hon. Members to make the point, as some have done, that all costs are rising. I just make the simple statement to the House that there are ports in Scotland, in the North, where there have been compensating falls.
I was about to take up the point made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), which was a serious one. He said that men in Shetland were in a particularly precarious position. Here is a fact about Shetland: Shetland boats have been landing at mainland ports white fish to a value of £78,000, compared with £26,000 last year, so that the total value of their landings, both in Shetland and on the mainland, is 23 per cent. greater than last year.

Mr. Grimond: Mr. Grimond rose—

Mr. Stewart: I do not want to detain the House any longer. May I be allowed to conclude, because I feel that we have had a long time on this—

Mr. Grimond: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to ask one question. He said several times that some things have come down in cost. Will he tell the House whether or not it is true that, overall, costs have enormously increased? Has he been in touch with the Shetland Fishermen's Association in any way whatsoever? I am told they were not only not consulted, but not even informed about this Scheme, and have not been even to this day.

Mr. Stewart: I am being perfectly frank with the hon. Member. I told the House a little earlier that we had been in touch with the main inshore fishermen's association, but we had failed to make contact with the junior ones—if I may put it in that way—and Shetland is one of those. It was too difficult for Shetland at a day's notice to come to Edinburgh. I apologise, and I say it will not happen again.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: The Joint Under-Secretary has repeated himself in saying he wants to be frank with the House. He has admitted that hon. Members on both sides have listed items which have gone up in cost in recent years; but he said there are compensating factors because the costs of some things


has come down. He said that he wants to be perfectly frank with the House, yet so far he has not mentioned one item which has come down in price.

Mr. Stewart: I was about to mention them, but I thought the House was getting a little restive. I will mention them now. I have mentioned diesel oil. I am told, and I am confirmed in this, that the cost of diesel oil has been stable at the main ports over the past year—at Fraser-burgh, Wick and Lossiemouth.
I give another example. Seine nets cost between £54 and £68 now, compared with between £54 and £75 last year. The cost of Seine net warps—which is another way of talking about ropes—has fallen by between 9 per cent. and 10 per cent. in the last year. Those are examples of compensating falls to compensate for rises.
What is the general conclusion to which I think the House wishes us to come? It is quite clear that we cannot withdraw the Scheme, because we must maintain the subsidy. What is clear is that the House —and especially my hon. Friends behind me—wants to know whether we stand solid on this statement which was made

by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, when the Bill was introduced in 1953. The statement represents the considered view of the Government then, and it is that view upon which we stand today. It is:
Frankly, we do not see at this moment the likelihood of being able to terminate this white fish subsidy in the very near future. Of course, it should be the ambition of any industry to be self-supporting, but up to date the money for this subsidy has been granted by Parliament under the Appropriation Acts, as it was the genuine hope at the time that it would be a temporary measure to assist the industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th January, 1953; Vol. 510, c. 57.]

My right hon. Friend has said clearly today that between now and the time when we have to ask the House for an extension of the £7½ million to £10 million we must make up our minds as to the future. That process is now starting. We are considering, and will continue to consider, all the facts brought before us, because it is our firm intention to maintain this great national industry in as high a state of efficiency as is possible.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 221, Noes 177.

Division No. 86.]
AYES
[8.11 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Aitken, W. T.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Hare, Hon. J. H.


Alport, C. J. M.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hn. H. F. C.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)


Arbuthnot, John
Deedes, W. F.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Ashton, H.
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hay, John


Atkins, H. E.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Heath, Edward


Baldwin, A. E.
Drayson, G. B.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.


Balniel, Lord
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Barlow, Sir John
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)


Barter, John
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Hope, Lord John


Bidgood, J. C.
Errington, Sir Eric
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Erroll, F. J.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Bishop, F. P.
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Body, R. F.
Fell, A.
Howard, John (Test)


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Finlay, Graeme
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Fisher, Nigel
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.


Braine, B. R.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Foster, John
Hurd, A. R.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Freeth, D. K.
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Iremonger, T. L.


Bryan, P.
Gammans, L. D.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Glover, D.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Burden, F. F. A.
Godber, J. B.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Gough, C. F. H.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Gower, H. R.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Carr, Robert
Graham, Sir Fergus
Keegan, D.


Cary, Sir Robert
Grant, W. (Woodside)
Kerby, Capt. H. B.


Channon, H.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Kerr, H. W.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Kershaw, J. A.




Kirk, P. M.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Lagden, G. W.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Nairn, D. L. S.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Neave, Airey
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Leather, E. H. C.
Nicholls, Harmar
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Leavey, J. A.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)


Leburn, W. G.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Oakshott, H. D.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Page, R. G.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.
Partridge, E.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Longden, Gilbert
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Pott, H. P.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Powell, J. Enoch
Turner, H. F. L.


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Vane, W. M. F.


Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Raikes, Sir Victor
Vickers, Miss J. H.


Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Ramsden, J. E.
Vosper, D. F.


Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold(Bromley)
Rawlinson, Peter
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Redmayne, M.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Maddan, Martin
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Renton, D. L. M.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Ridsdale, J. E.
Whitelaw, W.S.I. (Penrith &amp; Border)


Marples, A. E.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Marshall, Douglas
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Mathew, R.
Roper, Sir Harold
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Maude, Angus
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Wood, Hon. R.


Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Sharples, R. C.
Woollam, John Victor


Mawby, R. L.
Shepherd, William
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)



Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Soames, Capt. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Molson, A. H. E.
Spearman, A. C. M.
Mr. Studholme and Mr. Barter.


Moore, Sir Thomas
Speir, R. M.





NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Dye, S.
Jeger, George (Goole)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Edelman, M.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Awbery, S. S.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Kenyon, C.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Lawson, G. M.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Fernyhough, E.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Benson, G.
Fletcher, Eric
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Beswick, F.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Lewis, Arthur


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Blackburn, F.
Gibson, C. W.
Logan, D. G.


Blyton, W. R.
Gooch, E. G.
MacColl, J. E.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
McGhee, H. G.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Grey, C. F.
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Boyd, T. C.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McLeavy, Frank


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mabon, Dr. J. D.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Grimond, J.
Mason, Roy


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mellish, R. J.


Burke, W. A.
Hamilton, W. W.
Messer, Sir F.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hastings, S.
Mikardo, Ian


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hayman, F. H.
Mitchison, G. R.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Healey, Denis
Monslow, W.


Carmichael, J.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Moody, A. S.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Herbison, Miss M.
Moss, R.


Champion, A. J.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Moyle, A.


Chapman, W. D.
Hobson, C. R.
Mulley, F. W.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Holman, P.
Oliver, G. H.


Coldrick, W.
Holt, A. F.
Oram, A. E.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Houghton, Douglas
Orbach, M.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Owen, W. J.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Paget, R. T.


Cronin, J. D.
Hoy, J. H.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hunter, A. E.
Pargiter, G. A.


Deer, G.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Parker, J.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Paton, J.


Delargy, H. J.
Irving, S. (Dartford)
Pearson, A.


Dodds, N. N.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Peart, T. F.


Donnelly, D. L.
Janner, B.
Popplewell, E.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)







Probert, A. R.
Snow, J. W.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Reeves, J.
Sorensen, R. W.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Reid, William
Steele, T.
West, D. G.


Rhodes, H.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Wilkins, W. A.


Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. (Ipswich)
Willey, Frederick


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Stones, W. (Consett)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Ross, William
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Short, E. W.
Timmons, J.
Winterbottom, Richard


Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Tomney, F.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Viant, S. P.
Zilliacus, K.


Skeffington, A. M.
Wade, D. W.



Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Warbey, W. N.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Weitzman, D.
Mr. J. T. Price and Mr. Holmes.


Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) No. 2 Scheme, 1955, dated 14th December, 1955, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th December, be approved.

Orders of the Day — CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

8.21 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Major Gwilym Lloyd-George): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It will be seen that the Bill is divided into two parts. The first part is designed to make new arrangements as to administration of justice in Lancashire, by the creation of new courts for the trial of criminal cases at Liverpool and Manchester. We have at the same time taken the opportunity to put forward in Part II of the Bill several proposals for amendment of the law, relating, in the main, to recorders, courts of quarter sessions, and stipendiary magistrates. This second part of the Bill is quite separate from Part I, but the reforms which it makes are, I think, necessary and the Bill offers a convenient opportunity for bringing them about.
First, I should like to say something about the problem with which Part I of the Bill is designed to deal. In 1952, the Lord Chief Justice approached the then Lord Chancellor and my predecessor about the congestion of judicial business in South Lancashire which had for some time given cause for concern. There had been a large increase in both the civil and criminal work at the assizes at Liverpool

and Manchester and also in the work of the Liverpool and Manchester City Quarter Sessions.
In the three years 1950 to 1952, the judges had spent an average of 201 days a year on criminal work at those two assizes as compared with an average of 129 days a year in the pre-war years of 1937 and 1938—an increase of over 50 per cent. There had, it is true, been a large increase in crime throughout the country, but the effect was felt most acutely in the large centres of population and especially in South Lancashire. The judges on circuit had, as their first duty, to deal with this criminal work, since prisoners must be tried and cannot be left in prison or on bail without their innocence or guilt being determined. The result was that the civil work fell into arrears. This work had itself increased.
In the three years 1950 to 1952 the judges had spent an average of 248 days a year on civil work at Liverpool and Manchester. This compared with an average of 196 days in the pre-war years 1937 and 1938. The Lord Chief Justice had sent additional judges to Lancashire to deal with the civil work, but the arrears continued to accumulate.
The number of civil cases awaiting trial at Liverpool and Manchester increased from 288 at the end of 1950 to 565 at the end of 1951 and to 970 at the end of 1952; and by May, 1953, that figure exceeded 1,000. I do not need to tell the House of the distress and hardship which can be caused to litigants who cannot obtain a hearing of their causes.
At the same time, there was a large increase in the work of the Liverpool and Manchester City Quarter Sessions. In 1952 the number of court days required for dealing with the work at the Liverpool City Quarter Sessions was 92; in Manchester it was 55.

Mr. Ronald Williams: Is the Home Secretary prepared to say, in considering these figures, that a substantial part of this work consisted of cases committed from what is now called the northern area of Lancashire?

Major Lloyd-George: I do not think that a study of the figures would sustain that. I hive the details of the committals from the northern area down to Manchester and Liverpool, and although they obviously make a contribution I do not think they can explain the figures.
This amount of work was more than could be expected of barristers having their own practice to attend to and drawing only a comparatively modest remuneration. Further, it placed a strain on officials of the courts and caused inconvenience to barristers and solicitors concerned with cases coming before the courts.
It did not seem to the then Lord Chancellor and my predecessor that this situation could be dealt with by any administrative means, nor did they think that it could be remedied by the comparatively simple method of increasing the number of Queen's Bench Judges. The appointment of more judges would not have helped the courts of quarter sessions and the sending of more judges from time to time on circuit to Liverpool and Manchester would have further strained the limited accommodation at those two cities.
It seemed to them that, as the situation in and about London at the beginning of the last century was remedied by the establishment of the Central Criminal Court at the Old Bailey, so some such solution might be found for the difficulties in South Lancashire. They therefore appointed, in December, 1952, a Departmental Committee under the Chairmanship of Sir Alexander Maxwell, with terms of reference requiring them to inquire into the need for the establishment in South Lancashire of a court on the lines of the Central Criminal Court.
The Committee did not recommend the establishment of a central criminal court. It found that there would be more than enough work for one full-time judge of such a court, but not enough for two judges. It also observed that considerable expenditure would be entailed by the establishment of a central criminal court. It recommended that there should be

created two new full-time judicial posts and that the holders of these posts should have the double duty of assisting the Queen's Bench Judges by trying criminal cases as commissioners of assize and of performing the functions of Recorders in the two cities.
This was an ingenious solution of the problem, but it would not be wholly satisfactory. What the committee was proposing was that there should be two persons who, for part of their time, would sit as judges of courts of quarter sessions and at other times as commissioners of assize. This would mean that it might happen that on the same day one person was sitting as a commissioner of assize and as a recorder, having different jurisdiction according to the case he was trying. We have decided, therefore, to proceed with the Committee's proposals in a somewhat modified form.
If this Bill is approved there will be established in Liverpool a new court, to be called the Crown Court, which will combine the functions of the Liverpool Assizes, so far as criminal business is concerned, and of the Liverpool City Quarter Sessions, and a similar court will be established in Manchester, combining the criminal work of the Manchester Assizes and the functions of the Manchester City Quarter Sessions.
The Recorderships of Liverpool and Manchester will be made full-time pensionable appointments, with a salary of £4,000 a year, the same as that paid to the Recorder of London. Commissions will be issued constituting all the Queen's Bench judges and the two recorders as members of the Liverpool and Manchester courts.
Arrangements will be made for certain of the most serious cases, such as murder and manslaughter, to be dealt with by a Queen's Bench judge, who will attend four of the 11 sessions a year, at about the same times as those of the present four assizes. This will not delay the trial of a serious case beyond the length of time which it would have to wait under the present system, as the judges will visit Liverpool and Manchester as often as at present.
The city justices will commit to the appropriate Crown court all cases which they at present commit to the city quarter sessions or to the assizes, and also cases for sentence under Sections 28 and 29


of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952; and the Crown court will hear appeals from the city justices. Other justices who at present commit to Liverpool or Manchester Assizes will commit to the appropriate Crown court. Finally, the recorders will continue to deal with any other business with which they deal at present as recorders.

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: I am a little puzzled by the difference between the Report and the Government proposals. I understood the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that there was a difference of quarter sessions jurisdiction and assize jurisdiction in the case of the Report proposal, but there was a similar jurisdiction in the Government's proposals. So far as I can see, both from what he said and from reading the Bill, there are two distinct categories of jurisdiction to be exercised under the Government's proposals—the assize and criminal jurisdiction and the quarter sessions jurisdiction. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman can explain the difference further I shall be obliged to him, because I am rather puzzled.

Major Lloyd-George: If the hon. and learned Member will wait, my right hon. and learned Friend will be very glad to go into technical details in connection with that point. I gather that these judges will always be sitting as recorders. I was dealing with the position of recorders, and I now come to the position of the staffs.
The staffs of the courts will be under the control of the Clerk of Assize of the Northern Circuit, and he will take over the functions of the Clerks of the Peace of Liverpool and Manchester. He will have assistants, one of whom will act as clerk of the court in each city.
As the work of the new court will be in part work now done at assizes and in part that of the city quarter sessions, the cost of the salaries and pensions of the recorders and their staffs and certain other expenses will be divided between the Exchequer and the Liverpool and Manchester City Councils. The civil assizes at Liverpool and Manchester will go on as at present, save that the judges, being relieved of all but the most serious criminal cases, will be free to devote much more time to the civil work.
We have taken this opportunity to put on a more up-to-date basis the whole of the arrangements for the provision of accommodation for courts of assize in Lancashire. These arrangements are, for historical reasons, different in each of the three assize divisions of the county and are now in some respects anomalous. The court accommodation at Lancaster is provided by the Lancashire County Council and the costs are met by that authority. At Liverpool, accommodation is provided by the Liverpool City Council and the costs are met by them.
At Manchester the old assize courts building is owned by the county council, but controlled and manager by a joint committee of members of the county council and of the councils of all the county boroughs within the Salford Hundred, and expenses are met out of a special rate levied on the Hundred. We propose that the duty of providing accommodation for the new courts and for the civil assizes at Liverpool and Manchester should be placed on the two city councils. We have sought to find a method of dividing the costs among the authorities in the county which would have the approval of all of them, but I am sorry to say that this has not proved possible.
Three schemes have been discussed at conferences with the local authorities in Lancashire. In all three schemes provision was to be made for Liverpool and Manchester to pay that part of the cost of providing accommodation for the new courts which would be attributable to their work as successors to the present city sessions. The cost of providing accommodation for the Crown courts as successors to the criminal assizes and for the civil assizes was to be divided among several authorities.
The first scheme provided for the cost of court accommodation at Liverpool and Manchester to be divided among all the authorities in the area of each court, namely, the West Derby and Salford Hundreds. It was opposed by some of the county boroughs in the south of the county on the ground that, while they were being called upon to contribute, no contribution was to be made by the county boroughs in the Northern Division of the county, which sent some cases to the Liverpool and Manchester courts.
The second scheme provided for the costs at Lancaster, Liverpool and Manchester to be divided among all the


authorities in the county. While this scheme met the objections of the county boroughs in the south of the county to the first scheme, it was not acceptable to the county council, which would be required to make a larger contribution, partly because the Liverpool City Council made it clear that if this scheme were pursued they would charge a rent for the accommodation used by the courts at Liverpool for which under the first scheme no charge would be made.
The third scheme, which is the one embodied in the Bill, provides for the cost of court accommodation at Lancaster, Liverpool and Manchester respectively to be divided among all the authorities in the area of each of the three courts.

Mr. L. M. Lever: "Area" means Hundreds?

Major Lloyd-George: No, it means the three assize divisions.

Mr. Lever: The authorities in the Manchester area are covered by the Salford Hundred and those in the Liverpool area are covered by the West Derby Hundred. There are three Hundreds so far as the Lancaster area is concerned.

Major Lloyd-George: I have not the names here, as the hon. Gentleman knows, but I have a reference in one of these documents—the West Derby, and Salford Hundreds and the Northern area.

Mr. Charles Royle (Salford, West): Will not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that many cases are tried at Manchester and Liverpool out of the areas covered by the Lancaster Assize?

Major Lloyd-George: I am not an expert in these matters, but I gather that it is not unusual for a case to be tried in a place other than that where the man was committed. Particulars I have show that about 178 cases were sent to Manchester and 71 to Liverpool from the Northern area in the four years 1950–54. That brings me back to the point I made, that there was great opposition by many authorities to the various schemes, and that the one we have put into the Bill is that on which there is the greatest common measure of agreement. That was the only thing we could do. We know that it is vitally necessary to get these courts as best we can, and that time means

a great deal. I do not think that the change makes all that much difference to the local authorities, either.
It was decided to include in the Bill the scheme to which I have referred because it was acceptable to a majority of the authorities concerned. That was all that we could do. The authorities included the county council and the city councils of Liverpool and Manchester and all the northern boroughs. We consider that it gives a measure of justice to all the contributing authorities. It goes some way towards meeting the objections of some of the county boroughs in the south of the county, in that it requires those in the northern division—this is an important point—for the first time to make a contribution towards the cost of the assizes at Lancaster. That cost has hitherto been borne in its entirety by the county council.
I am sorry that it was not possible to find a scheme which commanded the unanimous support of the authorities. Where some change has to be made in diverse and long-established arrangements, it is almost impossible to find a scheme which is equally acceptable to everyone. I am satisfied that the scheme in the Bill is practicable and reasonable. We have included in Clause 9 adequate safeguards of the interests of the contributing authorities.
The spending authorities, the Lancashire County Council, and the Liverpool and Manchester City Councils, will be required to submit estimates and accounts to them, and to consider any representations the spending authorities may make. The spending authorities have assured me that they will always be prepared to meet the contributing authorities to discuss annual estimates if such a meeting is desired by any of them. If, nevertheless, a spending authority reaches a decision which is not acceptable to a contributing authority, the latter may appeal to me.
There is one other provision to which I should like to draw attention. Clause 7 deals with the position of the County Borough of Stockport, part of which is in Cheshire and part of which is in Lancashire. Criminal cases from Stockport are now sent to courts in Cheshire or Lancashire, according to that part of the borough in which the offence was committed. The Departmental Committee recommended that all criminal cases from


Stockport should be committed to courts in Lancashire. Clause 7 therefore makes this change, and it is acceptable to the Stockport Borough Council and to the Cheshire County Council.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that it is certainly not acceptable to the Wales and Chester Circuit? Will he not try to balance the interest that he has as Home Secretary against his interest as Minister for Welsh Affairs?

Major Lloyd-George: I did not know that Cheshire was part of Wales, but I am learning things every day. I was only dealing with that particular point and saying that this arrangement will be very useful.
Before I turn to Part II of the Bill, the House may wish to know whether there is now the same necessity for the measures which we are proposing as there was when the Departmental Committee reported in the autumn of 1953. I have given some figures of cases awaiting trial, and perhaps the House would like one or two more. There has been a considerable improvement in the civil work at assizes. There are now approximately 345 cases awaiting trial in Liverpool and Manchester, as compared with 1,036 awaiting trial in May, 1953, but we think it still desirable that the Queen's Bench Judges should be relieved of a good deal of the heavy criminal work with which they are faced at Liverpool and Manchester in order that they may devote themselves to the trial of civil cases.
I should say that there has been some reduction in the time spent on the hearing of criminal cases at assizes. The number of days so far spent on this work this year has been 148, as compared with 215 in 1952 and 1953. I understand that this reduction is largely due to justices having committed to quarter sessions instead. At Liverpool, there has been some increase in the work of quarter sessions. In 1952, the recorder and the assistant recorder sat for 92 days. This year they have sat for 118 days.

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: Has the Home Secretary any figures which would indicate the number of appeals to the sessions from the stipendiary's decisions; and the number of people in Liverpool who have elected

to go for trial at the sessions rather than go before the local stipendiary?

Major Lloyd-George: I have not those figures with me, but I will see if I can get them.
I was saying that at Liverpool the recorder and the assistant recorder sat for 118 days this year as compared with 92 days in 1952. It will be agreed, I think, that this is far more than can be expected of a part-time recorder and assistant recorder. The work of the city quarter sessions in Manchester occupied 55 days in 1952 and 57 days this year. I should like to take this opportunity to pay my tribute to the recorders of Liverpool and Manchester, and to the assistant recorders for the services they have rendered.
Therefore, while the necessity for special measures to relieve the assizes is somewhat less, they are still desirable, and at quarter sessions the need is as great as, or greater than before. There is no indication that it will decline to such an extent as would enable a part-time recorder to do the work in a reasonable amount of time.

Sir Eric Errington: Perhaps my right hon. and gallant Friend would give the comparable figure for the Manchester Sessions this year. For Liverpool the figure is 118 days.

Major Lloyd-George: I think I have referred to that. I said that the work of the Manchester City Quarter Sessions occupied 55 days in 1952 and 57 days this year.

Mr. Graham Page: Can the Home Secretary give any estimate of how much of this civil work may be transferred to the county courts under the transfer of jurisdiction? Has an estimate been made of how much that will cut down the civil work?

Major Lloyd-George: I am told that at this juncture it is practically impossible to give an estimate. I suppose it depends on how it works out.
Part II makes various amendments to the law relating to recorders, courts of quarter sessions, stipendiary magistrates and other matters. Clause 12 abolishes the distinction between the powers of a recorder of a borough having a population of over 50,000 and a recorder of a borough with a smaller population. The


number of small boroughs with their own courts of quarter sessions was much reduced by the Justices of the Peace Act, 1949, and there seems no need to retain this distinction.
There is at present no statutory retiring age for recorders, chairmen and deputy chairmen of the County of London Quarter Sessions and Metropolitan stipendiary magistrates. Clause 13 provides for a retiring age of 72, with possible extension to 75, which is the same as that of county court judges and provincial stipendiary magistrates.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: May I ask a simple question? What determines the retiring age in a lawyer? Why 72?

Major Lloyd-George: It is the age that is to be fixed, the same as for county court judges, and so on. What determines their retirement is the age which has been fixed, with a possible extension to which the Lord Chancellor could agree. There is also provision, to which I will refer presently, of removal from office, which at present can be done only for misbehaviour. In the Bill, we propose to provide for this on the ground of inability also.

Mr. L. M. Lever: Ordinary justices of the peace are expected to retire at the age of 75.

Major Lloyd-George: Yes. This is a provision that the age may be extended to the age of 75 if the Lord Chancellor so determines. As I have said, provision is also made for the removal from office of a recorder or a chairman or deputy chairman of the London Quarter Sessions for inability. At present they may be removed only for misbehaviour.
At present, a recorder appointed temporarily as a result of the death or retirement of an existing recorder is entitled to only a fraction of the recorder's salary according to the number of days on which he has sat. These days may be three out of, say, twelve days in the year on which the recorder works and it is unfair that he should be paid only three three-hundred-and-sixty-fifths of the salary when he has done a quarter of the work. Clause 14, therefore, provides that the Lord Chancellor may determine what

part of the previous recorder's annual salary shall be paid to a temporary recorder.
At present, a recorder has power to form only one additional court and an assistant recorder cannot be paid at more than a fixed rate for more than six days work at each session. Clause 15 will enable a recorder, if the borough council approves, to form more than one additional court and removes the present limitations on the remuneration which may be paid to an assistant recorder.
Clause 16 transfers to the Lord Chancellor and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster certain of my functions in relation to the pensions of the chairman and deputy-chairman of the London Quarter Sessions, the salary, retirement and pensions of stipendiary magistrates and the appointment of deputy stipendiary magistrates. The Lord Chancellor is already responsible for making recommendations for the appointment of the chairman and deputy-chairmen of the London Quarter Sessions and stipendiary magistrates, and it is right that he should take over these additional functions.
At present, a non-county borough with a separate commission of the peace is, according to the view of the law which is taken in some areas, obliged to contribute towards the cost of the county magistrates' courts, and the county probation service, as well as paying for its own courts and probation service. This anomaly is removed by Clause 17, and in addition a borough having its own court of quarter sessions is relieved of the obligation to contribute towards the cost of the county quarter sessions.
The panel of lay justices, members of which may sit at quarter sessions in London to hear appeals, consists of one lay justice for each of the 16 petty sessional divisions, but if, as is proposed, the number of divisions in the county is reduced to eight, the number of lay justices on the panel will automatically be reduced to eight This will be too few, and Clause 18 gives power to alter by Order in Council the number of representatives of each of the petty sessional divisions on the panel.
I have tried to explain the provisions of this small but by no means unimportant Bill, and I hope I have not


taken too long in doing so. The arrangements which are proposed for the establishment of new courts in South Lancashire should do much to improve the administration of justice, both criminal and civil, in that part of the country. The various amendments to the law proposed in Part II of the Bill, to which I have just referred, are necessary reforms. Therefore, I commend the Bill to the House. It has already passed through another place, and I hope it will have a smooth and speedy passage through this House.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: My first and pleasant task is to thank the Home Secretary for his exposition of this Bill. Many of the Clauses are technical and difficult, but I am sure that even those who have not followed the Bill's provisions previously have been able, as a result of his exposition, to appreciate what we are endeavouring to do by the Bill. It is a dull Bill, but it is a very important Bill. It deals with the machinery of the law, with the mechanics of the law. The machinery and mechanics of the law are, perhaps, not as interesting to Members of the House who are not engaged in the practice of the law as are matters of criminal offences, but although the Bill deals only with machinery and mechanics it is of supreme importance.
It is divided, as the Home Secretary said, into two parts. Part I seeks to make new arrangements for the administration of justice in Lancashire. As regards Part II, the Home Secretary, assisted perhaps, by the Lord Chancellor, having obtained from the Lord Privy Seal time for the Bill in this House, has seized on the opportunity to add to Part I the miscellaneous matters which he, no doubt, desired to get through the House. He is to be congratulated on adding to the main Part of the Bill one or two very necessary administrative reforms.
I turn, first, to Part I. As a member of the Northern Circuit, I very much welcome the Bill and I think I can speak for all my hon. Friends on this side of the House when I say that it commands our support, although I must warn the Home Secretary that there will be one or two critics of Clause 9.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: And Clause 7.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: Of Clause 7 I would say de minimis non curat lex. If the members of the North Wales circuit lose an insignificant part of their jurisdiction, I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) will have sufficient work without that coming from the corner of Cheshire which is now being included in Lancashire and, perhaps, his loss—you never know, Sir—may be my gain.
In 1950 and 1952, and indeed ever since the war, the conditions of work on the Northern Circuit have not been easy. They have been difficult in the amount of criminal and civil work which has been thrust upon the courts and there have been exceptional difficulties, in accommodation, about which I should like to speak later. Anything which can help the smooth flow of the law in Lancashire is indeed welcome. The criminal work at assizes has increased enormously. The civil work has been falling behind because the prime function of the judges was to clear the gaols, and in assize after assize judges have been taken away from civil work. Even the judge who was primarily at the assize for civil work has been taken away by the "red" judge to assist him to clear the gaols.
In May, 1953, there were over 1,000 civil cases awaiting trial. But it was not only the work at assizes which was overloaded. The position was even worse at quarter sessions at Liverpool and Manchester. The recorders of these two cities were both part-time recorders, both hardworking barristers who required time for work other than their functions as recorders. As the years went by, it became clear that no member of the Bar could accept the appointment of Recorder of Liverpool if he hoped to retain his practice. In 1952, the Recorder of Liverpool and his assistant spent 92 days on the duties of the recordership. I am sure that it was never contemplated that either he or his colleague in Manchester would be called upon to sit so often in their capacity as recorders.
The Recorder of Manchester sat for 28 days in 1952 and his assistant sat for 22 days. That was an intolerable burden on part-time recorders. Sir Noel Goldie, Recorder of Manchester, and one time a Member of this House, who is held in the greatest respect and affection on the


Northern Circuit, has manfully carried on at Manchester. In fact, I gather that this year he has put in more days even, than he did in 1952. I am sure we should express our thanks to Sir Noel for the great burden of work which he has carried, and I would remind some of my colleagues, who much abuse lawyers, that there is no overtime pay for the job.

Mr. W. R. Williams: They make enough without that.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: The position was such that something had to be done to assist the proper despatch of criminal work and the clearing up of the arrears in the civil list. In December, 1952, the Maxwell Committee was appointed
to enquire into the need, in order to relieve pressure on Courts of Assize and Quarter Sessions, for the establishment in South Lancashire of a court on the lines of the Central Criminal Court … to report upon its composition, the nature of its jurisdiction, the areas … from which persons might be committed thereto.…
The Maxwell Committee reported on 31st August, 1953. It is a matter for regret that the Bill has been held up for so long. It is a cause of deep concern on the Circuit, and I have hardly been present at an assize when I have not been asked when the Bill was coming forward. However, we have since had a General Election, and there were political matters which the Government thought of much greater concern than this relief for the courts in south-west Lancashire. The Bill went through another place during the last Parliament, and has had to wait until now.
Now we are to have established, as a result of the recommendations of the Maxwell Committee, the two Crown Courts in Liverpool and Manchester. The Committee came to the conclusion to which we on the Northern Circuit knew it would be forced to come, that
Relief is needed to enable the judges to keep abreast of the civil work.
The Committee's further recommendation and conclusion was:
There is undue pressure on the City Sessions at Liverpool and Manchester. The volume of work at each of these courts is so large that a Recorder who is in practice at the bar ought not to be expected to cope with it.

Those are strong words, with which I entirely agree. The Committee went on:
We recommend that in place of the part-time Recorderships at Liverpool and Manchester there should be created two full-time judicial posts, and that the holders of these posts should have the double duty of trying criminal cases as commissioners of assize and of performing Recorders' functions.…
On the basis of those recommendations we have this Bill.
As I said earlier. I regret that the Government have not followed paragraph (7) of the Committee's recommendations, which says:
Legislation will be needed. In our view it is urgent that relief should be given to the assizes and city sessions, and we hope that it will be possible for legislation to he introduced at an early date.
That hope, unfortunately, was not fulfilled.
The jurisdiction which is given is covered by Clause 1. I note with satisfaction, that it is still to be the case that murder and other serious and difficult cases will be taken by High Court judges. The cases are referred to in the Report as ones of "special gravity."
The Bill fixes something which I do not think the Home Secretary mentioned, and that is a salary of £4,000 a year in respect of the recorder in each city.

Major Lloyd-George: It is the same as for a recorder in London.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: Yes, it will be the same as in London. The jurisdiction will be all indictable cases which have previously been committed to assizes at Liverpool and Manchester.
We are to have these courts, I trust, and the sooner the better. The problem has undoubtedly been eased, as the Home Secretary told us. In May, 1953, there were 1,036 civil cases awaiting trial at Liverpool and Manchester; in June, 1955, 460, and I am told that the figure now is 345. There are reasons why these figures have fallen. They are not permanent reasons, at least we on the circuit hope that they are not permanent reasons.
I have already mentioned the first reason, which is that the Recorders at Liverpool and Manchester have sat far more days than they ever should have sat as part-time Recorders. In Liverpool, the burden was so intolerable that my friend, Mr. Nelson, found that he had to


retire from the appointment because he just could not carry on his practice. Mr. Rogers, who is now the Recorder of Liverpool, by sitting many more days than previously, has managed to cope with the burden of the criminal work at Quarter Sessions. At Manchester, as I said, Sir Noel Goldie has also been called on to do more work than he should have done as part-time Recorder. That is one reason why the figures have fallen.
The reason why cases have fallen in the civil list is also worth looking at. For assizes on the Northern Circuit we used to have one judge doing civil work all the time and then being assisted on the civil side by the criminal judge for the last week or so of the assizes. At the present Manchester Assizes, two judges have been sitting continually doing criminal work and only one judge has been doing civil work. I assure the Home Secretary that the number of civil cases will mount again.
I hope that we shall not resort to the practice which, unfortunately, has been all too common on the circuit in the last two or three years, of sending a judge to Liverpool and Manchester out of assize time to sit and hear civil cases from, say, the 10th of January to the 28th when the assize proper commences, doing a fortnight's work sitting as a civil judge in Liverpool, while assizes are also proceeding in Carlisle or Lancaster. That has caused great inconvenience to solicitors, counsel and litigants. It is unfair on the circuit that we should have a court of that kind, and two courts of assize sitting in different towns on the circuit at the same time. By adopting that device, the figures have fallen to 345. I hope that when we get the Bill through, it will not be necessary for judges to be sent up for the special civil assizes as we have in the past.
I welcome Clause 7 of the Bill and the inclusion of that part of Stockport which is now to be added to Lancashire. It may be for the inconvenience of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Ham, but I am sure—

Mr. Elwyn Jones: On a point of order. My constituency has been called many things, but I have never heard it called North Ham. I ask my hon. and learned Friend to correct himself upon that.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: I am sure that officials in Stockport will welcome the change which is proposed by the Bill.

Mr. W. T. Williams: My hon. and learned Friend has called attention to the part of Stockport which is in Cheshire and welcomed it into the Northern Circuit and looked for the approbation of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones)—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): I hope that we shall not discuss Committee points before we have reached the Committee stage.

Mr. Williams: I was only going to say that in so far as my hon. and learned Friend would not find his anger difficult to assuage—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a proper intervention.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. W. T. Williams) did not complete his statement. For the lack of a word or two, it was entirely unintelligible.
May I be allowed to say one word about Clause 9? This is a Clause which is really contentious. So far as the Opposition is concerned, it is not a contentious Clause. I understand that the opposition comes from both sides of the House and is partisan, constituency opposition. It is certainly not party opposition.

Mr. R. Williams: Is my hon. and learned Friend entitled to pass judgment upon the arguments before he has heard them, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have nothing to do with the validity of the arguments. I deal only with their order.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: Ever since the Bill was in print, I have been bombarded by certain town clerks with the arguments for and against. I am in full possession of all the arguments before they are uttered by my hon. Friends. I am sure that this matter will be thrashed out in Committee, and that no doubt there will be some Amendments. It certainly should not hold up the Second Reading.
I said that I wanted to say something about accommodation on the Northern Circuit. Accommodation in Liverpool is


now reasonably good. St. George's Hall has been repaired. We have four courts, and I think that we can contend with the work very well.
I am sure the Home Secretary is well aware that conditions in Manchester are little short of intolerable. We suffered the loss of our assize courts at Strangeways and, since the war, we have been accommodated at Minshull Street for the criminal work and in the Town Hall for the civic work. Minshull Street has adapted its courts, but in Manchester we sit in the committee rooms with the judge at a green baize table, which is not a dignified situation.
There are no proper retiring rooms for the judges, who have to share. Only on Friday of last week it was embarrassing to the two judges, because one had an application and the other did not want to leave the room. He had to be escorted to another convenient place to sit while his learned brother heard the application. That kind of thing really should not happen. There are plans for new courts at Manchester, but I noticed that the Lord Chancellor said in another place that it would be a matter of years before accommodation at Manchester would be suitable.

Mr. L. M. Lever: I appreciate the difficulties to which my hon. and learned Friend has rightly referred and which should be altered at the earliest possible moment, but I should like to make it perfectly clear that the Manchester City Corporation has done everything possible to provide as much comfort as possible for the learned judges and counsel. I do not want it to appear as if we have been indifferent to the situation. We have done our best and we shall continue to do our best.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: I am sure that we all agree that conditions have been difficult for the Manchester City Corporation, but they have been exceedingly difficult for Her Majesty's judges and for the Bar and solicitors. There are no conference rooms. There are not even proper cloakrooms. If something could be devised to give more dignity to the courts in Manchester, it would be something that the Government ought to look into. I believe that the learned Attorney-General has been in Manchester recently, and that he has had an opportunity to

see the conditions under which judges and counsel, solicitors and litigants are trying to perform important work in that city.
I turn to Part II of the Bill. As I said at the outset, this is an opportunity seized by the Lord Chancellor to do a number of things which are not connected with the major part of the Bill. I do not intend to go over them Clause by Clause, for that would take too long. I have not heard of any objection to any of these matters. They all seem to me extremely reasonable, especially the Clause which allows recorders to have a second court if necessary. The lack of power to do that has been felt on many occasions, and I am sure that this provision is welcome.
Speaking as a recorder, I am not sure whether I entirely approve of Clause 13, which extends the power of the Lord Chancellor to remove me for inability. That power has not been present before. I have no doubt that the House will accept the Clause and I only hope that in future, if I have to be removed, it will be for physical and not mental causes. On behalf of hon. Members on this side of the House, I welcome the Bill. I hope that these courts will be set up and these appointments made with as little delay as possible, and I commend the Bill to the House.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. John C. Bidgood: I agree with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary that he has found it very difficult to please all the people all the time in connection with this Bill. I wish to thank him for his courtesy in having seen me on two occasions when I pressed the claims of the smaller county boroughs which consider they have not had a square deal regarding this piece of legislation.
I wish briefly to recapitulate the situation which led up to this Bill. On 30th October, 1954, Home Office proposals with regard to the new Crown courts in Manchester and Liverpool were circulated to the Lancashire County Council and the county boroughs in the West Derby and Salford Hundreds. On 14th December, 1954, a conference was called at Preston where the proposed financial arrangements were made known. At the conference it was stated that the cost of the courts would be shared between Manchester and Liverpool, the Lancashire County Council and the county boroughs


of West Derby and Salford Hundreds on a percentage basis.
Certain points were raised by the interested county boroughs and an alternative scheme put forward by the Home Office. A number of people at the conference expressed their preference for the Home Office alternative scheme. Ultimately a conference was held at Preston on 15th February of this year, and, much to the surprise of the county boroughs, proposals were put forward by the Lancashire County Council which had not been previously circulated to the county boroughs concerned. It was made fairly certain at that meeting that the Home Office was prejudiced in favour of the county council's scheme.
I am speaking on behalf of Bury in Lancashire, one of the smaller county boroughs, which happens to form part of my constituency. We feel that this Bill provided a wonderful opportunity to remove some of the anachronisms and anomalies inherent in this part of Lancashire. We know that the Hundreds serve no useful purpose whatever in these days of modern travel. A century ago, when travel was difficult, it was probably a good thing that we had these Hundreds boundaries. But today, when we are more mobile, I feel that the Hundreds boundaries should not have been applied to a Bill of this type. To prove my point regarding mobility, I wish to give one or two figures showing how anomalous is this Bill with regard to the continuing of the Hundred boundaries.
The population of Bury is 58,000 and, under the Bill, Bury will be required to contribute an annual sum of about £1,053 as its contribution towards the upkeep of the Manchester Assizes. Burnley has a population of 83,000 and is asked to contribute an annual sum of £250 as contribution towards the Lancaster Assizes. The amusing part, if it were not so serious in this instance, is that in the four years to which the Home Secretary referred, 1950–54, Burnley did not send a case to the Lancaster Assizes, and, quite by coincidence, sent 18 cases to Manchester, which is exactly the same number as the County Borough of Bury sent to Manchester during the four years under review; and yet the County Borough of Bury is asked to contribute over £1,000 towards the Manchester

Assizes whereas Burnley, with a larger population, is asked to contribute £250. Blackpool has a population of 146,000 and yet is asked for only £440 a year as its contribution towards the Lancaster Assizes.
I could give countless examples of similar anomalies. My reason for intervening tonight is not merely to press the financial claims of the County Borough of Bury, but to point out how strongly the small county boroughs object to the fact that they have been steam-rollered by the Lancashire County Council and the cities of Manchester and Liverpool into accepting this anomalous position.

Mr. W. R. Williams: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument and to reconcile it with the document which I have in my hand. If he is dealing with Clause 9, as I think he is, I wonder how he reconciles his argument with this:
The basis of Clause 9 is that these costs are to be divided and borne by the local authorities concerned in each of the three groups according to the populations in that division of the county council.
It goes on to say:
Population was chosen as the basis because when one is considering not only crime but also civil litigation, including divorce, it is only to be expected that the volume of work occasioned will be more closely related to population than to any other factor.
If that is so, how can there be these discrepancies between Bury and Burnley to which the hon. Member referred?

Mr. Bidgood: There is a very simple answer. I can best explain it in this way: the county borough of Bury objects to the fact that we are still retaining the old-fashioned Hundreds system. We say that the whole of the county of Lancashire should be treated as one unit for assize courts and that it is wrong to surcharge an authority for its contribution towards an assize to which it will probably never send a case. My county borough is quite prepared to accept a scheme on a population basis or on a rateable value basis—we do not mind which—as long as it is an equitable scheme and the burden falls equally upon the Lancashire County Council, the two large cities and the rest of the county boroughs throughout Lancashire.
I am the first to concede the difficulty which my right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary has had in obtaining


a general agreement upon this point—I know how hard he has tried—but I deplore the fact that we have lost this wonderful opportunity of getting rid of the old-fashioned Hundreds boundaries and concentrating upon the County of Lancashire as a whole. I hope that the representations which will be put forward this evening, and which I know have been put forward by the county boroughs, will, even at this late hour, persuade the Home Secretary so to amend Clauses 6 and 9 in Committee as to enable the county boroughs to have an equitable deal and to see that the larger authorities will not ride roughshod over them.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Charles Royle: I am in complete agreement with the general principles of the Bill, as is the city council of the constituency which I represent. Those who have been concerned with the work of the courts in that area of Lancashire have been very worried about the constant delays which have taken place, especially during the past few years, where petty sessional courts have had to commit to higher courts. Lay magistrates have been very worried about the question of bail. Witnesses have been inconvenienced, to say nothing of prisoners, and we have also been concerned at the fact that in some cases prisoners have had to wait a long time and then, ultimately, have not been convicted, or, at least, have not been imprisoned. The fact that in future the Crown courts are to be established in regular session will cause general satisfaction to all concerned. In that sense, I welcome the Bill.
In relation to Clause 7, we have had many interruptions from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones), who seems to be very concerned about what will happen to Stockport's relationship with Wales. As one who is, probably, the only native of Stockport in the House, I should like to point out that Stockport is essentially a Lancashire town. The River Mersey divides Lancashire from Cheshire, and the larger part of the town is in Lancashire even if the larger part of the population happens to be in Cheshire. Every part of the life of the town is Lancashire in character. It is an industrial town, and it should be included in Lancashire from

the point of view not only of litigation but also of geography. I say, almost with bated breath in the presence of my hon. and learned Friends who have been speaking upon this subject, that as a Stockport magistrate I hope that Lancashire will now include Stockport in its court's activities.

Mr. W. T. Williams: Does not my hon. Friend feel that Stockport will suffer a great loss in being denied the services of the Wales and Chester circuit?

Mr. Royle: I am prepared to take that risk. I think that we might possibly manage.
Having said some complimentary things about the Bill in general, I now want to refer to what has been said by the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Bidgood). I am in complete agreement with everything he said about Clause 9. I want to register my complete disgust about the way in which some county boroughs have been treated in these negotiations. They have been ignored in the consideration of the revised scheme. Consultations have gone on behind their backs.

Mr. L. M. Lever: I want to repudiate that. The consultations have related only to the question of the previous jurisdiction of quarter sessions in the respective cities of Liverpool and Manchester, and not to the question of assizes.

Mr. Royle: By the time I have finished my speech, I think that I shall have convinced my hon. Friend that what I have said is perfectly true.

Mr. Lever: It is not correct.

Mr. Royle: I say that the consultations have gone on behind the backs of the county boroughs. They have been presented with a fait accompli. Their representations have been ignored.
However, I will carry on where the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe left off, and relate in chronological order the course of events The Home Secretary told the House how the Departmental Committee was set up in 1952. On 30th October, 1954, each local authority was informed by the Home Office that the suggestions of this Committee were now going forward, with modifications. In the main, all the local authorities agreed to


the proposals, but they asked for a conference on the details of finance.
This conference, arising from that request, took place, on 14th December, 1954, after a financial basis for discussion had been sent out by the Home Office. That basis, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has pointed out, was that Liverpool and Manchester were to provide and maintain the Crown courts and share the cost with the county and certain other county boroughs, subject to the two cities first paying an agreed fraction of the cost in respect of their own quarter sessions being taken over.
In passing, I would remind the House that in the past the Liverpool Corporation has borne the weight of the Liverpool Assize costs, and that the Manchester Assize costs have been borne by the City of Manchester and the county boroughs of Salford, Bolton, Bury, Oldham, Rochdale and Stockport. The costs of Lancashire have been borne by the county council. The conference on 14th December, 1954, provided an opportunity to look at the general financial structure, and the Home Office representative heard all the suggestions and promised consideration. The most attractive suggestion was the one already referred to—and it seemed to get the support of all who were there at the time—that the costs of the three courts should be shared by the local authorities in the area after charging Liverpool and Manchester for the quarter sessions being taken over, and the proposal that there should be a governing body, with all the local authorities represented.
On 1st February, 1955, the Home Office informed all the local authorities that the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary thought that effect would be given to these alternatives if the local authorities preferred. The only amendment they would suggest at that time was that Liverpool and Manchester should become the governing body and that the other county boroughs should be contributors after consultations about the estimates.
A further meeting was suggested for 15th February this year. This is where I come to the point just raised by my hon. Friend. At this meeting, the county boroughs were shocked—that is not an exaggerated description—to be confronted, without any notice at all, with a

new scheme, which was accepted and almost insisted upon by the Home Office representative at the meeting. It had been expounded by the clerk to the county council. In effect, that scheme is what appears as Clause 9 of the Bill. It provides that the local authorities in the northern district, in the West Derby Hundred and the Salford Hundred, should be responsible on a population basis for their respective district courts, with certain fractions from Liverpool and Manchester.
I say with deliberation, and advisedly, that the scheme had been put up to the Permanent Under-Secretary by the county and the two large cities, in the absence of the other county boroughs and had been accepted by him without consultation with those county boroughs. I am in possession of a full report of that meeting. Protests came from all parts of the room and they were very strong indeed. The reply was that the protests were too late because the Bill had to be put on to the Statute Book. That was before the General Election. The Bill is before us, after a delay of ten months, so there was not the very great urgency which was suggested at that time.
In spite of all the protests, the Home Office representative said that he would recommend the proposals to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. One can only assume that influence was brought to bear at some interim meeting. Against these hole-and-corner methods in a matter of such vast importance and affecting so many authorities in the County Palatine I protest as strongly as I can. The proposals in this Clause are completely unacceptable to the county boroughs and are most unfair.
At the meeting to which I have referred the representative of the Home Office said—I quote:
The scheme introduced was the best possible compromise.
He went on to say that it provided for rough justice to be done. Let us look how rough. An hon. Member has told one or two cases to show how rough it is. Perhaps I may cite one or two other illustrations. Salford has a population of about 173,900, on the 1953 figures. It is asked to pay £3,150. Blackpool, with a population of 146,700, is asked to pay £440. If the computation had been on a rateable value basis, as before, Salford


would have been contributing £2,134 and Blackpool £3,512.
It will be argued, I know, that Blackpool is in the North and not either in the West Derby Hundred or the Salford Hundred, but let us look at the court figures In 1953–54, Salford sent 79 cases to either Liverpool or Manchester while Blackpool sent 152 cases; yet Salford must pay £3,150 and Blackpool only £440. It is ridiculous to suggest that the northern towns should contribute only to Lancaster when in those years they sent 249 cases to Liverpool and Manchester, and only 234 to Lancaster.
Blackpool sent more cases to Liverpool and Manchester—84—than any other county borough in those Hundreds. Southport sent 33; St. Helens, 35; Warrington, 17; Wigan, 16; Salford, 79; Bolton, 29; Bury, 18; Oldham, 51; Rochdale, 22; and Stockport, 33. Nevertheless, Blackpool does not pay half as much as the least of those, and only one-eighth the amount paid by the largest. I assert that the population basis is quite unfair. The poorer towns with the high rates are punished. The rateable value basis would be much more equitable, but the really just way is to take the county as a whole and divide the cost according to the cases committed to any of the three courts in the county. Revision would be perfectly easy, say every five years, on a basis of cases sent.
I apologise for having to speak in this way, but this is a matter of great importance to places such as Salford. Every county borough in the county is having a raw deal. I have tried to quote as few figures as possible, but I think that the whole suggestion—and the methods employed—is preposterous. The Committee stage of the Bill should be very interesting indeed.
I conclude by listing my objections. First, the Hundreds boundaries are completely unrealistic in these days. Secondly, it is not equitable for authorities in the northern area to contribute only to Lancaster when they send so many cases to Liverpool and Manchester. Thirdly, all the authorities should govern as well as contribute. Fourthly, on the one-eighth and one-twelfth basis for taking over their quarter sessions, Liverpool and Manchester get off far too cheaply. My appeal is that, in Committee, justice will be done

in the administration of justice in Lancashire. As the Bill now stands justice is not being done to the county boroughs, and I hope that that will be rectified.

9.47 p.m.

Sir Eric Errington: I hope that the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) will forgive me if I do not follow him into the details of the financial arrangements. I feel that it would be not inappropriate for me, as one who practises at the Liverpool Sessions, to put some considerations before the House.
The Maxwell Report, which was limited entirely to the disposal of criminal cases, rested the case for additional help upon (a) the desirability of relieving the High Court judges of substantial portions of criminal work; and (b), the excessive pressure which Liverpool and Manchester Sessions put on their part-time recorders. That was the position when the Maxwell Report was published in 1953. Anybody who practises at quarter sessions knows how very important it is that there should be adequate arrangements for dealing with the work, but we ought, perhaps, to hesitate a little as to what should be done, bearing in mind the change that has taken place since the figures were made available by the Maxwell Report. The number of days of criminal work at the assizes has decreased substantially from 215 days in 1952 to, I am told, 148 days this year. I was given the figure of 123 days, but the difference may be caused by the fact of two judges sitting at Manchester Assizes during the last few days. However it is a substantial decrease.
The difference in the number of civil cases awaiting trial is much more marked. In 1952, 861 cases were awaiting trial. In 1953, as we have heard, the number had gone up to 1,031, but in 1955 it has now come down to 345, which represents a reduction of practically two-thirds. In addition, at some time in the near future, there will be the extension of county court jurisdiction. Moreover, in Liverpool we have the Court of Passage and in Salford there is the Court of Record.

Mr. L. M. Lever: It is situated in Manchester, not in Salford.

Sir E. Errington: It is no doubt divided out between them.

Mr. Lever: The clerk of the Salford Hundred Court has been the town clerk of Manchester.

Sir E. Errington: From these facilities, there would appear to be no reason to expect that civil cases will increase to such an extent as will require the High Court judges who try them to be relieved. This seems to me to deal a difficult blow at the findings of the Maxwell Report. An important part of the considerations that that Committee had in mind have largely, by co-operative efforts so far as civil work is concerned, been brought to what I would describe as normality.
The relief however of part-time recorders is very much overdue. It is fair to say that different recorders vary very much in the speed with which he deals with the cases before him, but for a long time it has been an almost impossible position for any body who has had to administer justice through the Liverpool Quarter Sessions. Not only has the recorder had to devote a great deal of time to this work, but there has been his deputy also, who was paid for only six days at each sessions but sat very often for a large number of days without payment. That, of course, is entirely unsatisfactory.
It is as well, I think, to consider the figures. As I understand them, in 1952 the recorder and his deputy in Liverpool sat for 92 days and in 1955 for 118 days; in Manchester, in 1952, the recorder and his deputy sat for 55 days, and this year they sat for 57 days. The total of the days both the recorders and their deputies sat this year was 175 days. That was fewer than the number of days which the Maxwell Report, I think in paragraph 47, says that the holders of full time judicial appointments may be expected to sit. It says they should not normally sit more than 180 days, though may be less. The Maxwell Report reckoned work of 220 or 235 days as the basis on which it recommended the appointment of two full-time judges. It seems to me one ought to have regard to the fact that at neither Liverpool nor Manchester do the days they sit amount to the 180 days suggested by the Maxwell Report as the suitable number of days for a judge to sit.
That brings me to a matter I would put to the Attorney-General in the hope that he will deal with it when he replies

to the debate. It arises from paragraph 59 of the Report, which says:
In any Bill it would, we suggest, be advisable to make the power of appointing full-time Recorders permissive, so that there may be a return to the system of a part-time Recordership if in the future the criminal work at Liverpool and Manchester should be so reduced that two full-time judicial appointments are no longer needed.
I think that, perhaps, there was less necessity at the time that paragraph was written than there is today for us to be assured that, in the event of any change in the amount of work at Liverpool and Manchester, there is power to make the necessary changes. Once again I would stress the importance of not having two full-time judges at the Crown Courts who are occupied in fact only half their time.
I should like in conclusion to say how much I agree with what has been said about the accommodation not only for judges but for advocates, witnesses and everybody else, which really is extremely unsatisfactory in Manchester. The sooner it is put right the better it will be for all.

9.59 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Williams: Let me at the outset make a comment upon the observations which were made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Crewe (Mr. Scholefield Allen) when he opened the debate for this side of the House. As I understood him, he felt, in welcoming the Bill, that the objections to it fell under two headings.
Under one heading my hon. and learned Friend said de minimis non curat lex, and he thought that that disposed of the very weighty interruption which was made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones). The other objection was that many of us were concerned solely with constituency points which could be better put in Committee, and he knew what the substance of the arguments were going to be because he had certain communications from town clerks.
It is necessary for me to dispose as quickly as I can of the assertion that my contribution this evening could be dismissed under either of the two headings which were used by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Crewe. I can assure the House that my arguments will not be addressed to Committee points at all but to the underlying principles of


the Bill. In the course of those arguments I hope to clear up one or two points which I know are remaining in doubt in the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Droylsden, a fair-minded man, who felt there was some objection to any criticism of a principle based on population.

Mr. W. R. Williams: That would be very nice if my hon. Friend got my constituency right. It is Openshaw.

Mr. Williams: I beg my hon. Friend's pardon. He has been a Member of the House for so many years, and I have been so used to thinking of him in those terms that I made that error.
As to the county boroughs and their significance in this matter, I should like to make it clear that although I shall be certainly putting forward points which are of vital importance to the constituency of Wigan, that constituency is accompanied in most of its objections by county boroughs which represent over 900,000 people, and I would say to the Minister, "You should take a lot of notice of what one million Lancastrians are saying."
My main objection arises out of the observations made by the Home Secretary when he said that the necessity for the Bill came because of the congestion of work in the courts. In that, of course, he was absolutely right, but he did not go further and make inquiries about the origin of that suggestion. Had he done that, he would have come to the conclusion that whilst it was right at a certain point in history to divide Gaul into three parts, it was not necessarily the right thing to do to Lancashire at present in relation to the administration of justice. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman might have felt that there were other ways of getting at this problem.
Wigan and Warrington, for example, are two county boroughs with extremely good records in the number of committals. It so happens that they did not make a large contribution to the congestion in the courts but, by jove, they have to make a contribution of a very substantial and unfair nature to the price of providing a new service of administration. If the Bill were based on the principle of population and there were an assessment of costs equitably on that basis, my

hon. Friend the Member for Openshaw would feel that he would be right in asking, "What is the objection?" But the objection is that this is only part of the calculation.
A population rate is taken, but then Lancashire is divided in effect into three separate counties, and if one happens to be in an area labelled the Northern Area one is in a part of the county where, up to the present, the county council has paid all the charges. The Home Secretary therefore says, "In that part we will charge them something, but we will impose very small charges upon them because, since we are imposing a charge for the first time, we cannot apply to them the principle applied to other parts of the county."
As a result of doing that, a Bill which is basically a good one is turned into a Gilbertian effort. We find that certain parts of the county which, in relation to congestion in the courts, send very substantial numbers of cases, have to pay very much less than other places which send very much smaller numbers of cases.
Taking together my constituency of Wigan and the constituency represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill), their total population is about 160,000, and under the Bill's proposals they have to pay more than £2,000, whereas Blackpool, with a population of 146,700, because it is in the northern area, will have to pay the astonishingly small sum of only £440 per annum. Whatever arrangements have been made by the Government, they are clearly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Openshaw will see, not based purely on population. Another principle has been introduced, and as a consequence the proposal put forward is absurd and unfair.
The representatives of nearly one million people in Lancashire did not have a fair opportunity of voicing their objections or of having them considered. I wish to express in the strongest terms that I can my condemnation of the way in which the Minister and his Department have dealt with the county boroughs. The county boroughs have not yet had a full reply from the Minister to the proposals which they put forward and the principles which they suggested.
What has happened is that the Minister has taken a certain scheme. Hon. Members might as well know that we in the county boroughs know it as the "county councils' scheme" because it emanated from the county councils. However, we do not know the reasons underlying some of these extraordinary proposals, because they have never been disclosed to us. All we know is that Wigan having, on average, over the years from 1950 to 1954 committed sixteen cases to assizes, will have to pay, on the basis of a population of 83,000, £1,154, whereas if we had been in the northern area we should have had to pay only a microscopical proportion of that sum.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): While the hon. Gentleman is giving the figure paid under what he calls the "county councils' scheme," will he state what Wigan would pay on the basis which he advocates?

Mr. Williams: Yes, indeed, but perhaps the Attorney-General will allow me to make my own speech. If he has heard the representations which have been made, and if he has acquainted himself with the history of this very important matter, he will know that certain representations have been very strongly made to the Home Secretary. I myself have made representations during the last few months and have put alternatives to the Home Secretary, and the Attorney-General knows as well as anybody, or should know, that they will necessarily be part of my submissions this evening. But it does not follow that I must include that part of my speech in the part in which I am merely criticising the steps which have been taken by the Government. When I have the Floor, it is for me to decide when I shall propose certain constructive things, as I will before I sit down and when I am addressing myself to demonstrating how discourteous the Home Secretary and those advising him have been in their treatment of the county boroughs. The sad thing about it is that the differences could have been composed, I am convinced, had a little more time been taken in discussion and consultation.
Surely there is none in the House more courteous than the Home Secretary. I have known him for many years and I would say that, however much one might disagree with his political views, he is a

most courteous individual. How has it come about that the Home Secretary should have a reputation for discourtesy among county boroughs representing nearly one million Lancastrians? It comes about because he has accepted—I am sure in good faith—proposals which are not based upon any clearly defined principle.
In reply to the Attorney-General's point about what I would propose, I would say first that there are several ways of approaching this. I put as one way the submissions which have been made by Wigan. Until tonight I thought that these submissions were made only by Wigan and were not supported by the other county boroughs. I do not mean that they were opposed by the other county boroughs, but that it was as it happened only Wigan which put them forward. I was delighted when my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) put forward these proposals indicating that there are other county boroughs who now support this point of view.
The suggestion which I make as one possible way which would be equitable would be to look at this question of congestion in this way. The courts are being used more by some than by others. The use of the court has to be paid for, and it should be paid for upon the principle of its being used, that those who are using it more shall pay more and those who are using it less shall pay less. It would follow from that that at least there would be a clear principle in the Bill whether Members agreed with it or not.
A clear, basic principle would be established under which the contribution would vary with the number of cases that came along. That would be a solution to satisfy the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, but it is significant that when the proposal was put forward the reply was most extraordinary. It was that that would be contrary to the principle of justice, as if there were some relationship between a magistrate sitting as a Bench and deciding whether to sit or not, and a finance committee in another part of the county altogether functioning in another time or place to decide whether the contribution levied on them was fair.
I put it to the Home Secretary that with a little thought it would have been possible to answer courteously and clearly


the perfectly sound proposal which Wigan put forward; but he did not do that. He made a reply which, frankly, was absolutely shocking. Let us suppose that Wigan is unable to carry other county boroughs with it in that proposal. Is there another? When one is considering the administration of justice and setting up courts in relation to a particular area, and when one bears in mind that many of the committals which are made to Manchester and Liverpool are from the Northern area, one can ask what is the local authority for the purpose of finance.
Surely it is a body, the strength or weakness of which depends not on a counting of heads but on considering the rateable value. If one considers the rateable value, it is possible to marry the rateable value idea to the scheme which was put forward by Home Office. The advantage of that would be that there would be a consistent principle applied in the Bill and we would not have these ridiculous differences in the figures.
I hope that when he comes to reply the Attorney-General will be able to tell me how he reconciles the astonishing differences in the figures, differences which have been supplied to him. Details of all those figures have been quoted tonight and were supplied weeks ago to the Home Secretary. He has, as far as I can see, if not completely ignored them, at any rate decided to take this or that other scheme and not to give any convincing reply to the proposals of the county boroughs. I make no assertion that the county boroughs are necessarily right in what they are suggesting. I simply say that they have put forward very powerful reasons to which the Minister has not replied. He did not reply to them in the representations made to him. He merely said that he was considering the matter, and he came to the House tonight and did not make any statement at all at any time to show the reasons why he had rejected them.
He pointed out the difficulties. He said that in a case of this sort where we are making a fresh advance we cannot please everybody; but he should have considered the very substantial arguments put to him by Wigan, Warrington and other county boroughs. Turning to Warrington for a moment, I would say that it is significant that the first time the suggestion came of the contribution being based upon a rateable value it came from

the representatives of Warrington. Now every county borough which has made objections—representing all these people in Lancashire, representing I would say not the majority but such a substantial number—is entitled to a reply. The Minister is not entitled to be silent upon this. We are entitled to have a reply in the House to the arguments which have been put privately and during the debate today.
In these circumstances, I ask the Minister, even at this late stage, to turn this basically good measure into a measure which will receive general acceptance. That could be done by a slight alteration which would be of such a nature that it would be related to a principle, whereas what had happened is that basically the Bill, in relation to the administration of justice, rests upon principles, but particular parts of the Bill—notably Clauses 6 and 9—rest upon an arbitrary decision. It has been decided quite arbitrarily to put this point forward without any supporting arguments at all.
Therefore, I say with all the force that I can that the Minister has made a dreadful mistake here and that those who have supported him from this side of the House, including my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Crewe have made a great mistake in not going into the underlying principles upon which these Clauses depend and testing them and seeing whether there were precedents for them. There is a precedent for rateable value. There is a precedent for putting this on a case basis. There is no precedent whatever for simply deciding the matter arbitrarily and applying to modern Lancashire the divisions which were more appropriate to ancient Gaul.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: I did not attack at all. I was trying to take a non-partisan view. I merely said that from a party point of view there was no attack upon the Bill. I neither attacked nor commended it.

10.19 p.m.

Mr. L. M. Lever: I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on behalf of one of the larger authorities which seem to have been much maligned, either in thought or in word, today. First, I wish to welcome the Bill because it meets a situation which has been one of very great difficulty in the City of Manchester and


the areas which have been concerned and which have strangely enough been heard in complaint today.
When one looks back on post-war years, one realises how the congestion at the assizes, certainly with regard to civil cases, has caused a great deal of grievance among the litigants who came to the High Court for justice. I speak not only as a member of the local authority in the City of Manchester for nearly a quarter of a century, but also as one who has practised as a solicitor at the assize courts in Manchester for nearly thirty years. In the whole of my experience I have never known a time when the difficulties for litigants have been so marked. Happily, this situation has been somewhat relieved in the last few months and is certainly likely to be relieved by this Measure.
It is understandable that Her Majesty's judges of assize should be concerned with what has been called clearing the gaols. It is important in the administration of British justice that those incarcerated and uncertain of their fate should know that their trial will be as speedy as possible. There has been a great deal of confusion about this Bill, and especially about the parts played by the Cities of Liverpool and Manchester. Two aspects are covered by this Measure. First, it deals with the criminal work usually done by the assizes and secondly that at quarter sessions. In so far as it relieves the criminal work done by assizes my hon. Friends have had a great deal to say.
But this Bill does not only deal with the work committed to assizes. It deals also with the quarter sessions normally held in the Cities of Manchester and Liverpool. No grievance seemed to relate to the Bill on principle, but when it comes to the question of paying for it, that matter appeared to cause concern. I submit that the proposals contained in the Bill are not unjust. In the past, Liverpool Quarter Sessions have been held at St. George's Hall. There are four courts and one court has mainly been occupied with the work of quarter sessions.
Under this Bill, it is proposed that the quarter sessions and the assize work combined should occupy one of the four courts. If quarter session work alone is apportioned as only half of the work of

the newly appointed recorder, it is not unreasonable that Liverpool should be called on to pay one-eighth of the costs of overheads and on a similar basis Manchester one-twelfth. In Manchester, we have been very unfortunate. We did not invite Hitler's forces to Manchester. I can assure those who criticised the facilities provided there that we should have been the last to welcome them. But they came and we lost our beautiful assize building. It may have been a little old-fashioned in some respects, but it was a very beautiful building in which the administration of justice was carried on successfully for many years.
As soon as the new situation arose, the city council did everything it could to place all available accommodation at the disposal of Her Majesty's judges for the administration of justice. We took work out of the petty sessional court and, rightly, emptied large, ornate and beautiful committee rooms to enable justice to be administered. I do not say that the conditions are ideal, but they are certainly the best possible in all the circumstances, and as a city we are very happy to do all we can to promote speedy justice and the comfort and convenience of Her Majesty's judges and litigants.
There is a project to build a new assize court. It has been under consideration by both the local authorities concerned and the Minister and has now been approved. It seems to me that the bogey for local authorities is what they will have to pay for the maintenance of the new assize court, which has not yet been built.
I think I should say a word about the system under which the assizes in the county have been proceeding all these years. Assizes in Lancashire were formerly held only at Lancaster in a building leased to the county by the Duchy of Lancaster. The county council used to ask for contributions through the justices of the peace for the holding of assizes in Lancaster.
Subsequently, Liverpool applied for assizes of its own, and I must pay a tribute to Liverpool; the City has been most generous in the way it has contributed ever since assizes have been held at Liverpool. St. George's Hall has been maintained by the Liverpool Corporation, which has never asked for a penny from anyone for the purpose ever since assizes


have been held there. Nor has Liverpool asked for contributions towards the cost of Her Majesty's judges' lodgings. That is the case despite the fact that the assizes serve not only the City of Liverpool, but the area around Liverpool and what is known as the Hundred of West Derby.
When Manchester applied for assizes the situation was quite different. The Lancashire County Council and the county boroughs of what is known as the Salford Hundred, and the City of Manchester, all became joint contributors to the assizes held in Manchester. As the Home Secretary said, a joint committee was appointed to administer this assize court. Contributions were made on a rateable value basis.
Is it right that this situation should continue—that although these local authorities are paying on a rateable value basis towards their own assize court in Manchester, and Liverpool is bearing all the cost of the Liverpool Assizes, yet the City of Liverpool is also making a contribution to the assizes being held at Lancaster and Manchester and the county boroughs in the Hundred of Salford are also making a contribution towards the assizes held at Lancaster? It seems to me that the whole situation is an anachronism, and we ought to face the situation fairly and squarely.
I think that the hundred division is a proper division because, after all, Lancashire is quite a big county. Suppose, for example, there were an assize courts conjoint committee consisting of every county borough from Barrow-in-Furness down to Stockport, all contributing on the basis of rateable value. Whenever some new linen or crockery had to be bought—because that is all the conjoint committee will have to do, make provision for crockery and linen in the judge's lodgings—the representatives of all those contributing on the basis of rateable value would have to travel miles and miles in order to approve the purchase of a cup or a saucer.
The functions of these assize committees are only those which would normally be performed by a steward—engaging porters and minor officials of one sort or another. It seems to me that in making provision for county representation of the assizes at Manchester, Liverpool and Lancaster, use is made of grandiose language for a situation which does not warrant it.
It has been suggested that contributions should be based on the rateable value as heretofore. It should be remembered that the question of rateable value was settled many years ago, and there is now a new situation. There is now a central Exchequer equalisation grant, which was never taken into account when the rateable value basis was settled. If this were paid out of the general rate fund, as it would be under the proposal in Clause 9, all those local authorities who are complaining would receive an Exchequer equalisation grant from the central Exchequer on the contributions they pay towards the overhead maintenance of the Crown courts. However, it seems unreasonable that rateable value should now be the basis of financial contributions. Surely population would be the proper basis, in that in the administration of justice we are dealing with human beings.
I believe that the Cities of Manchester and Liverpool are being very, very generous indeed, because they are both agreeing to pay half the costs of the recorders and the provision of superannuation benefits connected with the new Crown courts in respect of work to deal with the criminal cases, and the central Exchequer is paying the other half. We are not asking for anything from the local authorities who have complained in regard to that part relating to work formerly done by quarter sessions in Liverpool and Manchester. It is worthy of note that their representatives have not waited to listen to the argument that might have been put forward on behalf of Liverpool and Manchester. They have merely made their little county borough speeches, to please their constituents or town clerks who have sent them communications; their little party speeches will be very fully reported in their local papers and everybody there will think, "What magnificent Members we have to have put our case so cogently." They have all run away, except the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams). The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle), who is not in his place, was a severe critic.

Mr. R. Williams: Is not my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) entitled to go to the HANSARD room to make quite sure that his speech has been properly reported? Since he has not returned, perhaps that fact will be recognised by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Lever: My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams), speaking on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West, all the more confirms what I thought, that he had gone to the HANSARD room to make sure that his speech was as cogent as I complained it was on behalf of his constituents.
We have shown the fullest measure of good will about the contributions that will be made under the Bill. We want to be friendly with our neighbours; we always have been. There has never been an argument between us until this question of the cost of the new assizes arose. For all these years we have been working amicably together, and I hope that my hon. Friends and their authorities will continue to work amicably with us. I suggest, with great respect, that it is ludicrous that contributions should be based on the number of people committed. Such a capitation basis—or perhaps I might call it a decapitation basis—seems unreasonable and ought to be dismissed as of no serious account.
All these authorities that hon. Members represented in this House want I am sure to be fair and to see justice well administered. Justice is very well administered in this country. There is no other country in the world where it is better administered than here. When all these authorities realise what the Bill involves and how much they need to play their part in the administration of justice and to feel that they are part and parcel of the scheme on which our new Crown courts are to be established, they will realise that Manchester, Liverpool, and the county council have been reasonable and fair.
We have to live with them for many years to come in harmony on many questions, and we are anxious to do so on this. When they carefully consider the situation, I hope that they will appreciate that our proposals, reflected in Clause 9, are as fair a basis as can be conceived. Discussions have been going on, in spite of what has been said to the contrary.
Almost in conclusion, I want to rebut the suggestion that we have done anything, behind the backs of other authorities. What we have to say, we shall say in their presence. We are an important authority, a responsible and just authority, and we are not dictatorial in

any way. When we, together with Liverpool, discussed the matter with the Home Secretary we were concerned only with the cost we should have to bear in relation to our own responsibilities for the work formerly carried on by quarter sessions in Manchester and Liverpool and not with the whole question of the setting up of these Crown courts for taking criminal work normally at the assizes.
I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for giving me the opportunity of saying this. I hope that I have been fair even to the critics of Manchester, which I am very proud to represent in local government and in Parliament, and that the amicable relations which have existed among all these authorities will be continued after these matters have been further considered.

10.40 p.m.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: I was rather shocked to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever) charge his colleagues, to whom he is generally kindly disposed, with saying their little party pieces. Did he at no time during his excellent speech envisage the thousands in Manchester who will next week read with great interest the remarks which he has just made? I hope that my hon. Friend will not charge me afterwards with making my little party speech, because I declare forthwith that what I have to say—and I shall be very brief at this late hour, and will not be guilty of tedious repetition—is in consequence of representations which have been made to me by my local authority, the County Borough of Warrington.
I confess that tonight I encroach with a little nervousness on the province of the lawyers—this Bill is, of course, highly technical. Furthermore, I am here as one representing a Lancashire constituency, but I confess, also, that I have only done so for a very few months. I have listened with respect to my colleagues who have detailed knowledge of the administration of justice in Lancashire. I have not that detailed knowledge, and I would not presume to pronounce upon Lancashire's needs, and on what has happened in the past, with the same authority as have my colleagues.
It is quite clear that these new Crown courts have been welcomed by both sides of the House. About that there is no


argument. I want to focus attention, if I may, on what is, in my opinion, the most important charge. In the first place, I recall that some years ago I had the honour and privilege in this House to pilot through certain Bills. I am surprised that the Home Secretary has not discovered something which I discovered very early in my Ministerial career—when framing a Bill it is a fundamental mistake to by-pass important local authorities, associations or organisations.
Here there was, apparently, a first scheme, of which the southern part of Lancashire subsequently complained on the ground that it was inequitable. The Minister then produced a second scheme, but the county boroughs then complained. Apparently he then got impatient—a fatal mistake. It is a fatal mistake to get impatient, because the final result is that there is no saving of time. The House sits, the various constituency representatives want their say. Later, in Committee, a Bill which might have passed through without any controversy whatsoever is delayed. That was the Minister's great mistake.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams) quite rightly said that Wigan's position is very similar to that of Warrington, and he reminded the Minister of certain figures. As I think that the Minister was not present when one set of figures was mentioned, I shall repeat it and ask that it may be justified in the closing speech. Wigan and Warrington—both very poor areas in comparison with some of the other towns in Lancashire—will, by this Bill, be called upon to pay £2,000 a year against wealthy Blackpool's £440. These are the figures which I want to be borne in mind.
As has been said, it was Warrington that first made representations to the Minister to base his castings on rateable value rather than on population. Warrington feels rather affronted, of course, that this division has been ignored. But I have no intention of reiterating the cogent arguments which have been advanced tonight, arguments with which many of us concur. I want the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General to consider them very carefully, and, in Committee, to reconsider Clauses 6 and 9 in order that Lancashire, while welcoming these two courts, will not at the same time feel that there has been any injustice in allocating the costs.

10.45 p.m.

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: We have had an interesting debate, dealing very largely with local matters, but matters of considerable importance. The debate has been concentrated upon the division of cost among local authorities. I myself do not intend to pursue that, but I would emphasise the obvious importance of it to the local authorities.
Serious charges have been made against the Home Secretary, as he will recognise, particularly by my hon. Friends the Members for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams) and Salford, West (Mr. Royle), in their very powerful speeches. I am not going to enter into the merits of the case, but what they have said is that the Secretary of State has acted with lack of courtesy, with lack of consideration, and that he has eventually founded his costings upon some compromise in which, they say, they can find no principle at all. These are serious allegations to which, I am sure, the Attorney-General will give his attention in his reply to the debate. They are obviously matters which will arise in Committee, but it would be helpful to have at this stage the Government's full reply to the speeches which have been made upon that aspect of the Bill.
I should like to turn to the wider considerations for which the Bill is designed. We accept, of course, the general principles of the Bill, and we shall accept the Motion for its Second Reading, but I am myself a little concerned about certain aspects of the Bill. We all recognise that something has to be done about the administration of justice in Lancashire. The root difficulty has been, I understand, that in South Lancashire there has been a mass of criminal assize litigation, too much work for one full-time judge, not enough work for two full-time judges.
The suggested solution of this problem is, in order to provide sufficient work for full-time occupation for more than one judge, to put in the same court sessions jurisdiction as well as criminal assize jurisdiction. That appears to me to be the essence of the problem and the essence of the solution proposed of it. What the Maxwell Committee proposed was that there should be full-time Recorders for Liverpool and Manchester and that they should be, in addition, commissioners of assize to assist the High


Court judges when the High Court judges go to assize.
The proposal in the Bill is that there should be full-time recorders for Liverpool and Manchester in a central criminal court which should have sessions jurisdiction and criminal assize jurisdiction and to which the High Court judges should continue to go to exercise in addition criminal assize jurisdiction. In each of these proposals we have recorders doing quarter sessions work and we have recorders doing criminal assize work. The only difference that I can see between the Maxwell Report proposal and the Government's proposal is that the High Court judges under the Government's proposal would go to the recorder's criminal court, whereas under the Maxwell proposal the recorders would go to the criminal assize court. But the jurisdiction of the recorders would be precisely the same. I may have been mistaken, but that is how I understood the Bill and the opening remarks of the Home Secretary.
I understood the Home Secretary to say that there is a difference in jurisdiction. I should like to have enligtenment from the Attorney-General about the difference of jurisdiction between the Maxwell Report proposal and the proposal in the Bill with regard to sessions jurisdiction and criminal assize jurisdiction. I do not at all like a proposal which confers criminal assize jurisdiction upon anyone less than a High Court judge. It seems to me a proposal which we ought to approach with caution. In this suggestion we are having conferred upon recorders, who are less than High Court judges, a criminal assize jurisdiction, not just merely as a temporary arrangement, which is often made to deal with some temporary congestion, but as a permanent part of the regular jurisdiction of the country.
I appreciate that a similar thing is done in the London Central Criminal Court, but in that court there is no sessions jurisdiction and in that court we have a criminal court based in London in the centre of the country's jurisdiction. I will come to the importance of that in a moment. Therefore, I should like to have some indication, much more detailed than we have had so far, of what criminal assize jurisdiction will be exercised by the recorders.
As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Crewe (Mr. Scholefield Allen) pointed out, there is power in the Bill for the recorder to postpone cases coming before him in order that they may be heard by High Court judges. What cases will be so postponed? Are all murder cases, for instance, to be so postponed? Are all cases of other categories to be so postponed? If so, of what other categories? If all cases of other categories are to be postponed, why cannot we have it stated definitely in the Bill?
If all cases of some categories are not going to be postponed to the High Court judge, by what criteria are some cases in those categories going to be postponed to the High Court judge and others not postponed? The decision will have to be made not after the recorder has heard the case but before he hears it. Therefore, I should like to have a much clearer indication of what the Government have in mind about this than is possible at present. I hope that the Government will consider, as we on this side of the House shall consider, the desirability of including in the Bill clearer provisions for the division of functions between the recorder and the High Court judge.
The establishment of a court in Liverpool and Manchester and south Lancashire has been regarded in some quarters as an experiment in establishing local high courts. I have the greatest misgivings about any such suggestion, and, certainly this experiment in South Lancashire will be followed with very considerable interest. I think it is immensely important that judges should go on assize. I believe that it brings home to the people of the country, in the strongest possible way, the detached, impersonal, powerful, and even the dramatic administration of justice. I think it impresses on the people of the country the majesty of the law, and the integrity and detachment of the law, in a way in which it would be extremely difficult to do otherwise.
I think that it is desirable to have changes of judges among those who administer justice locally. I think it is important to have in the administration of justice, as we have in this country because we are a small country and because of the history of our country, centred in London in the Inns of Court, in the central courts of our country, Bench and


Bar, knowing each other, living together, contributing to the collegiate life of the place and the life of the Inns, contributing towards the formation of a sound, high, professional standard—and professional standards are not just accidental attributes.
They are developed over years, by men who live together and who contribute towards each other's development, intellectually and morally, too. It is of the greatest advantage to this country to have centralised administration of justice. After all, the great reputation of this country has, in the administration of justice, developed from the King's justice. It has not developed, as our political systems have so largely, from a collection of several local courts. It has developed from the central administration of justice, and I hope that that will be maintained and that departures from it will be made with considerable care.
We all hope—we are all sure—that in South Lancashire this court will develop successfully. But it is quite a different thing to have a Central Criminal Court in London and to have a court of this kind in Manchester. It is quite a different thing to have the administration of justice throughout the country decentralised in local, provincial courts in place of the central administration of justice here in London, with assize judges going out from that.
There is just one other remark I wish to make, and that is about Part II of the Bill. I very much welcome the small but, nevertheless, significant transfer of powers from the Home Secretary to the Lord Chancellor. I think it is important to apply, as far as we possibly can, the fundamental principle that the Judicature should be independent of the Executive, and that is a principle which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has applied tonight.
After all, the office of Home Secretary is a political appointment. The Lord Chancellor is a member of the Cabinet and he has his political aspect, but he is also the head of the Judicature, and it is important that the Judicature in all its aspects, in the appointment and removal of judges and the control and the administration of judges, should be carried out entirely independently, as far as it can possibly be done, of the Executive. Therefore, I welcome the transfer of these comparatively small, but nevertheless

important, items from the Home Secretary to the Lord Chancellor.
It is extremely important that there should be no political aspect at all about the appointment and administration of judges, and that is a small but valuable contribution which is made in Part II of the Bill. The other proposals in Part II do not raise matters of such general principle, but they are valuable contributions towards the administration of justice.
We on this side of the House welcome the Bill. We welcome Part I, with regard to the South Lancashire court, because we believe that something drastic has to be done about the congestion in South Lancashire. We also welcome the provisions in Part II. We shall certainly not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill.

11.2 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas), I was glad to note, concluded his speech by saying that he welcomed the provisions of the Bill in relation to the administration of justice in south Lancashire. When I heard some of his earlier observations, I rather began to wonder whether that was the conclusion to which he would come.
He spoke a good deal about the desirability of the assize system. I entirely agree with him about that. But then he seemed to indicate that the creation of the new Crown courts would do something to diminish and alter the assize system. Of course it will not. The judges will still be going on assize as they have done over so many centuries. However, what the provision of the Crown courts will do is enable the judges to deal more speedily with the more serious criminal cases, and with the civil work, which has suffered so extensively because of the pressure on the judges of the criminal work.
In the course of our debate, it seemed to me that hon. Members were not perhaps paying enough attention to the problem of the civil work, particularly in relation to discussions on Clause 9, when the basis of the argument was how many cases have been committed from this particular part of Lancashire to Manchester and elsewhere, without regard to


the extent of the civil work, which may go to Lancaster, Liverpool or Manchester.
The hon. and learned Gentleman said something about the advantages of a centralised administration of justice. He seemed to imply that that was essential for the maintenance of sound, high professional standards. I am sure that every possible effort is made, and, I think, with great success, on the Northern Circuit to maintain the highest possible professional standards. I speak as one not a member of that circuit.
The hon. and learned Member asked what difference there was between the Report of the Maxwell Committee and the scheme in the Bill. He suggested that the only reason for the scheme was to seek to secure work for more than one new recorder. I think that is what he suggested. I made a note of it at the time. Of course the object of the Bill is not to provide more work for lawyers; it is to enable justice to be administered more speedily.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I cannot allow one misrepresentation after another to go on like this. Every single point the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made has been made just slightly off the straight from what I said. I did not say anything of the kind. Of course I make no allegation against the Northern Circuit—nothing of the kind. Of course it has the highest possible standards. I was addressing myself to entirely different matters.

The Attorney-General: I am very glad to hear that, but I think that when the hon. and learned Member sees the report of what he said, he will find that I took a fairly accurate note. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman will find that he did say that the object of this system—and here I think that I am quoting him correctly—was that in order to provide work for more than one judge, quarter sessions and assize activity was to be put together. Surely he will agree that that was the effect of his words.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: No, no.

The Attorney-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman does not agree, but he said that the only difference between the Bill and the Report of the Maxwell Committee was that judges would go to the recorders' courts in one case and that recorders would go to the

judges' courts in the other. What is true is that the difference between the scheme in the Bill and the findings of the Maxwell Committee is not very great because the Bill is to a very large extent founded on those findings. But a difference is that, under the Maxwell Report, there would be somebody sitting as a recorder for one day, or just part of that day, exercising the jurisdiction of the ordinary recorder of a city and with the jurors coming from the panel for that city; and then, in the afternoon, he might be sitting in the same court not as a recorder, but as a commissioner of assize, with an enlarged jurisdiction and with jurors summoned from a different panel.
In the view of some who have great experience in these matters on circuit, it would not appear to be a good thing to have that transition taking place, and the difference between the Maxwell Report and this Bill can be summarised perhaps best in this way. Under the Government's scheme, there will be a recorder comparable in status and position to the recorder of London, who will exercise the same jurisdiction the whole time; whereas, under the findings of the Maxwell Committee, there would be one person exercising a different jurisdiction in a different capacity at different times.
I do hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman is satisfied that this is an improvement. Another point which was raised concerned the transfer of cases from one part of Stockport to Manchester away from the North Wales Circuit. One sympathises with those concerned when these transfers have to take place, but the case for making it in this instance is a strong one. It is not the first time that such a transfer has taken place; there was a transfer when Birmingham became a great city, and members of the Oxford Circuit were allowed rights of audience in the Midland Circuit. Some arrangement could perhaps be made between the Northern and the North Wales Circuits, but that is a matter for the Circuits themselves.
Now I come to the main subject of our discussion tonight, and which the hon. and learned Gentleman asked me to deal with at length. I hope he will forgive me if I do not speak on it at great length, but I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Crewe (Mr. Scholefield Allen) when he said that this was an important Bill and one which would help


to reduce delays in the law; and I agree with him in his view that it is a matter for regret that the Bill was held up for so long. But there was only one thing which held it up, and that was the failure to get agreement among all the authorities in Lancashire as to who would pay for these proposals, welcomed as they are throughout Lancashire. I think that my right hon. Friend has been attacked in a manner which cannot be justified. He has been condemned for taking the county council's scheme, and it has been suggested that he should have allowed more time for discussion.
The right hon. Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) said the Home Secretary made a fundamental mistake in bypassing the local authorities. Nothing of the sort took place. A scheme was proposed; then an alternative scheme, very like that which the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) thought a good one; and then that scheme met with objections. Then the next alternative scheme was put forward. That met with the objections which have been voiced tonight. There were bigger objections to the first alternative—much bigger objections; and, naturally, if it had any prejudices in the matter, the Home Office was prejudiced in favour of the scheme which commanded the more general acceptance.
For my right hon. Friend and the Home Office, the main thing is to get the Bill on the Statute Book, and it is indeed unfortunate that agreement has not been reached between all the authorities in Lancashire.

Mr. Royle: Is it not a fact that the negotiations about what kind of financial scheme should be adopted took place between October, 1954, and February, 1955? In view of the fact that the Bill is brought before the House 10 months later, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggest that that was too long a period for discussion of the financial Clauses when such great issues were at stake?

The Attorney-General: The hon. Member has omitted to mention that my right hon. and gallant Friend had also received deputations on more than one occasion and that efforts have been made—and I hope that more can be done even now-

to produce agreement; but the Bill cannot be delayed on that account. It is required.
I do not want to say very much about the scheme put forward by hon. Members. The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams) expressed surprise that the hon. Member for Salford, West came to his support. I was astonished that he should do so, because I have here the representations of the County Borough Council of Wigan on the proposed new arrangements. I think the hon Member for Wigan must have stopped before he reached the end of them, because the last paragraph reads:
It is understood that the county borough councils of Bolton, Bury, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, Stockport and Warrington also seek to secure the same provisions.

Mr. R. Williams: The Attorney-General must be aware that he is not now referring to the specific point which my hon. Friend made. If he reads the document which he has in his hand he will find that it is addressed to a different point.

The Attorney-General: It is addressed to a good many, but one point which appears from the document is that which the hon. Member for Wigan would not answer when I put it to him. He said that under what he called the county council's scheme in the Bill it would cost Wigan £1,154 a year. I asked him what it would cost under what is called the Home Office alternative, namely division among all local authorities. He would not tell me, but the figure is £1,165, so that the county council scheme, to which Wigan objects, would cost Wigan £11, less than the other scheme.
The same applies, according to the figures produced in this document by the Borough Council of Wigan, in relation to the County Borough of Warrington. The scheme in the Bill will cost Warrington less than would otherwise be proposed.

Mr. Williams: In the interests of accuracy and to ensure that we have a correct report, will the right hon and learned Gentleman not read the column which I am sure appears in the document in his hand, which is not the Home Office alternative but the Home Office alternative on a rateable value basis? He will see that he is making a wrong distinction and misleading the House.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman should not say that, because when I look at paragraph 9 of the document, dealing with the alternative scheme to which I have referred, I read:
The…third scheme…came as a shock to the authorities who had gone to discuss the Home Office alternative scheme, which earlier had appeared to meet with considerable approval.
The only difference is the rateable value point, which has been mentioned. I agree with what the hon. and learned Member for Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever) said, namely, that rateable value in relation to criminal and civil cases is not really such a good yardstick as population. I think that one recognises from the figures published that it would bring a slightly greater benefit to Warrington and Wigan. No doubt we shall hear a great deal more about the method of payment in Committee. All I would say to the House is that the Government have no view about which way should be adopted. All one wants to see is agreement between the local authorities concerned. Failing agreement, after the time which has elapsed, I do not think the Government can be criticised for putting into the Bill the scheme which has obtained the majority's support. I do not think that that has been denied, or disputed, by anyone who has spoken against the scheme.
I hope the House will give the Bill a Second Reading, and that although we may argue about Clause 9 everyone will do his best to see that this Measure, which has been delayed for a considerable time, will not be unduly delayed in reaching the Statute Book.

Sir E. Errington: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman sits down, may I ask him to reply to my question about the suggestion in the Report that it would be advisable to make the power to appoint full-time recorders permissive, so that there may be a return to part-time recorderships if there is a reduction in criminal work in Liverpool, Manchester, or Lancaster?

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Will he at the same time deal with the question I raised

about cases which will be postponed by the recorder to the High Court judge?

The Attorney-General: I listened to the whole of the speech of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir. E. Errington). I was not sure whether he was speaking for or against the Bill. When I rose I did not see him in the Chamber, so I did not feel it incumbent upon me to reply to the point which he raised. In my view it is a Committee point. Perhaps the hon. Member will raise it in Committee.
Regarding the hon. and learned Gentleman's point, I am sorry that I did not answer it. The answer is that one will get the same kind of division as one gets at the Old Bailey. It is not possible, and not desirable, to try to draw up a distinct category of cases which will be tried by the "red" judge. It works well at the Old Bailey. No one criticises the system there. I believe it will work well in these Crown courts. There will be no additional delay in dealing with the cases, because the judge will be coming at the same time as he would normally come to the Assizes. It will merely mean that the cases which are to be tried by a High Court judge will be so tried, and that also other more serious cases than are usually dealt with by recorders will be dealt with by these two recorders, who will have a higher status, and greater jurisdiction, than the ordinary recorder of a city or borough.

Sir E. Errington: I must press the right hon. and learned Gentleman to indicate whether appointment of these judges of the Crown courts is to be permissive. That is not, I would suggest, a Committee point. It is a serious question which goes to the root of the matter.

Mr. Speaker: Many serious points are debated in Committee.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Orders of the Day — CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—

[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make new arrangements as to the administration of criminal justice in Lancashire and matters connected therewith, and to amend the law of England and Wales as to recorders and courts of quarter sessions in boroughs and as to other matters (hereinafter referred to as "the new Act"), it is expedient to authorise—

(a) any increase attributable to any such new arrangements as aforesaid in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament on account—

(i) of salaries and of pensions and other benefits under the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, and the Administration of Justice (Pensions) Act, 1950; or
(ii) of other expenses on account at courts of law in Lancashire, being either expenses ordinarily so payable on account of assize courts or corresponding expenses on account of courts set up by the new Act to take the place of assize courts, but including expenses incurred on or in connection with the provision of office accommodation for the use of the clerk of assize or other officers of the courts;

(b) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of salaries at a rate not exceeding four thousand pounds a year to the recorders of Liverpool and Manchester while acting as judges of any courts set up as aforesaid, and of any pension or other benefit made payable by the new Act on the retirement or death of any such recorder in respect of his service as such a judge;
(c) the payment into the Exchequer of any contribution required by the new Act to be made by the city council of Liverpool or of Manchester to the expenses authorised by the foregoing paragraphs to be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament or out of the Consolidated Fund;
(d) any increase in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament by way of Exchequer equalisation grant under Part I of the Local Government Act, 1948, or under the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1954, being an increase attributable—

(i) to any such new arrangements as aforesaid; or
(ii) to amendments of the law of England and Wales as to courts of quarter sessions and magistrates' courts and matters connected with those courts.—[The Attorney-General.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL SERVICE (PERSONAL CASE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. R. Thompson.]

11.20 p.m.

Mr. Percy Wells: Private Barten, concerning whom I regret having to trouble the House for a few moments, was, prior to being called up for National Service, employed as a stockman at Littleham Farm, near Faversham, Kent. The farm consists of 110 acres, much of it arable, and was acquired by Private Barten's father in 1946 when it was in anything but a Grade A condition. The farm is now certified Grade A, as a result of the efforts put in by Mr. Barten and his sons. I was on the farm as recently as yesterday and became confirmed that, apart from the retention of some 50 head of cattle on the marshes, which should of course be in yards fattening and making manure, the farm appears to be extremely well managed, although it is true that the root schedule harvest is somewhat behind.
Private Barten has been troubled since birth with deformed feet and has continuously been under medical advice and specialist attention. In consequence, when he went for his medical examination for National Service he was put in a very low medical grade. He reported to his unit on 1st September and was then placed in medical Grade II, was excused training and informed that he would have to spend six weeks in his billet. He was excused route marching and "square bashing." This was the position when his mother appealed to me to get her son discharged. At that time, the health of Mr. Barten senior was such that he could do no work on the farm, although it was harvest time. I should like here to thank the Under-Secretary and those responsible in his Department, and also the commanding officer of Private Barten's unit, for the assistance they then gave; harvest leave was granted, which helped tremendously over the harvest—although it nearly landed Private Barten in jail, because, a mistake having been made, the police arrived on the farm to arrest him for being absent without leave, but the mistake was discovered and that was put right.
After his return from harvest, he was informed that he was to be supplied with special shoes, excused route marching and placed in a medical category which restricted his duties to those not having a front-line rôle. However, even with special shoes Private Barten experiences pain when he walks only a moderate distance. In these circumstances, it was decided to press for his discharge, as obviously he would never make a satisfactory soldier, whilst he was indispensable as a stockman. The reply given to me by the Under-Secretary in answer to a Question I put on 22nd November was that, whilst admitting Barten was not fit for front-line soldiering, he would be retained in the Service on restricted duties. This I considered, and still consider, to be unsatisfactory. Hence this debate.
Meantime, Private Barten had a slight attack of polio that has left him with ear trouble, and he has only recently been discharged from hospital. At Littleham Farm it has been impossible to retain stockmen. Apart from being in short supply, stockmen who are single will not take on the week-end work, and as there is no cottage available it is impossible to get a married man to stop. Mr. Barten senior remains ill and under medical care. Cattle which would normally have been retained are being sold, and only four breeding sows are being retained.
Mrs. Barten, nearly 60 years of age, has to work long hours on the farm trying to keep things going. She is helped by another son and an elderly employee. This son is not capable of looking after stock.
We are constantly being told how important agriculture is, what a fine job it has done in increasing production of food since before the war and what service it is rendering in saving imports and so helping us in our economic difficulties. Concern is also expressed at the loss of 25,000 workers yearly from the land; yet here is a highly-trained and irreplaceable farm worker doing odd jobs in the Army while no one can be found to do the skilled job which he is capable of performing.
A few weeks ago we were discussing a county cricketer who had foot trouble and had been released from Service. I

suggest that a skilled farm worker of this kind is even more important than a professional cricketer. This is not a case that has been brought to my notice as a result of publicity in the Press. It came to my notice only because Batten's parents found themselves in desperate straits. Let me read an extract from a letter sent to me by Mrs. Barten. She writes:
Regarding the call-up of my son Private C. W. Barten, this is causing serious hardship on the farm. My husband is under the doctor for nerve trouble caused by strain and overwork. My son had been trained for stockman and we have 17 head of cattle to put in the yards, but my husband is unable to look after them; so they are still on the marshes and will have to be sold unless we get relief. We have tried to get someone in my son's place but have been unable to get anyone as they won't do weekend work and we have no house to offer a married man.
She goes on to say what type of farm work she has to do at her advanced age to keep things going. It seems strange that at a time when the Government have found it necessary to ease the position of the farm worker in regard to call-up, a man so useless as a soldier but so useful on a farm should be retained in the Army.
I have been at some pains to verify the facts which I have presented this evening. Because of what I have said—and perhaps because of additional information that he has received as a result of these recent inquiries—I hope that the Minister will agree to look into this case once again.

11.31 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Fitzroy Maclean): It would, perhaps, be useful were I briefly to recapitulate Private Barten's medical and military history as seen from the War Office side. I do not say that it disagrees, as far as the facts are concerned, to any material extent from what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Faversham (Mr. P. Wells) has told us—it is, perhaps, a matter of emphasis—and when he has heard what I have to say, the hon. Member may take a rather different view of the case.
Before he was called up, Private Barten applied to the Ministry of Labour and National Service for exemption or for deferment on the ground that he was an agricultural worker. His application was turned down. When such a decision has been taken by the Ministry of Labour,


the War Office can only consider releasing a man if there has been a material change in his circumstances since the decision was taken—if his home conditions have changed, or if there has been a deterioration in his health.
Private Barten's record is as follows. He appeared before a medical board of the Ministry of Labour and National Service, at Chatham, on 5th May last, and was placed in Grade 2 because of a slight deafness in his left ear. That board had the benefit of the advice of two specialists. He was examined, first, by a consultant ear, nose and throat specialist who was concerned with Barten's deafness; and it was on account of that deafness that the specialist recommended that he should be placed in Grade 2.
Secondly, he was examined by a civilian consultant and orthopaedic surgeon, who was concerned with a slight abnormality of the feet, and especially of the left foot, but who, having taken that into consideration, reached the conclusion that the functioning of Private Barten's feet was within the limits acceptable for National Service. The hon. Member mentioned a well-known cricketer, but it does not necessarily follow that the state of his health was the same as that of Private Barten. Each case is considered, and very carefully considered, on its merits.
On 1st September Private Barten joined the Army and was once again medically examined. On this occasion the findings of the Ministry of Labour medical board were confirmed. As the hon. Member has said, Private Barten was once again placed in Grade 2, but the medical officer considered that it might be necessary to make some adjustment to Private Barten's medical category because of the condition of his legs. It was decided, I am informed, that they would first see what his reaction was to Army life.
The hon. Gentleman said that after his first examination he was excused all training and that he was told to stay in his billet for six weeks. That is the first I have heard of that, I must admit. I have no knowledge of either of those things. I will certainly look into the matter. The hon. Gentleman did not tell me about it, nor have I heard anything from the unit to confirm the hon.

Gentleman's statement. My information is that the decision of the medical officer who examined him was that provisionally he was to be left in the category in which he was placed by the Ministry of Labour but that they would keep an eye on him and that it might be necessary to reconsider his medical category later.
A week later, on 9th September, as the hon. Gentleman knows, Private Barten was sent on special harvest leave. Even if he had been relegated to his billet for six weeks, which sounds to me a little improbable, he was sent on harvest leave.

Mr. P. Wells: About the six weeks, will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that that was reported to me by Barten himself?

Mr. Maclean: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I will certainly look into that. As I say, he was sent on harvest leave, so that that point is not really material to the case, and for the time being, there were no further opportunities for medical examination.
Three days after he returned from leave on 18th October he was examined by his medical officer, who then arranged for him to be seen by the Command specialist in physical medicine. That examination by the specialist took place on 26th October. The specialist decided that there should be a slight lowering in Private Barten's medical category. My information is that it was as a result of that examination on 26th October by the specialist that Private Barten was excused from route marches, heavy drill and wearing boots. From then on he was allowed to do only modified physical training and to wear Service pattern shoes. Adjustment of his medical category took effect from 27th October.
I think the House will agree from what I have said that it is quite clear that from the outset this case has been very carefully watched indeed. Both the Ministry of Labour and the Army go to very great lengths to ensure that there should not be any mistake in cases of this kind, that men should be in exactly the right category, and that they should not be required to do any more than they are capable of physically.
To sum up the present state of Private Barten's health. I am advised that he suffers from two disabilities. The first is a slight deafness, due to an old ear


disorder which is now healed and from which he does not suffer any longer, except for the slight deafness. The second is a slight degree of deformation of the foot which, while it prevents him from wearing boots, undertaking route marches, or taking part in the more strenuous forms of physical training, does not make him otherwise unfit.
Indeed, that is shown by the fact that he is able to lead the civilian life of an agricultural labourer and that proves that he is by no means a weakling. It is therefore quite clear that Private Barten is fit to continue his National Service. He is not even in the lowest grade. He is fit to continue his National Service within the restrictions imposed by his medical category, and it is clear that in these circumstances there are no medical grounds for his discharge from the Army.
The hon. Member for Faversham has said that Private Barten is quite useless as a soldier. That is not so. In order to show why, I should like to recapitulate our policy in this matter, which has been made clear in the House many times already. The fact is that the day-to-day life of the Army involves the discharge of many tasks which are not of a strenuous nature and which can be perfectly well carried out by men who are not 100 per cent. fit and are not necessarily fit for the strenuous existence of a front-line soldier. These jobs must be done by somebody. If we dispense with the services of National Service men who are not 100 per cent. fit and we have in the Army only men who are 100 per cent. fit, these general duties which at the moment are being done by men in the lower grades would have to be done by fit soldiers, to the detriment of their training and of their duties as combatants.
It is therefore, quite wrong to say that men like Private Barten are useless in the Service. On the contrary, they are serving a very useful purpose indeed and have a very important part to play in Army life in that they do useful work and release fitter men for more arduous duties. The hon. Member for Faversham has mentioned the farm which belongs to Private Barten's family. I understand that it is a farm of about 110 acres of which rather more than half is pasture and rather less than half arable. At the moment, it is run by Private Barten's father, who is helped by his mother, his

brother and one employee. I gather that there are about 50 head of cattle, 200 poultry and a few pigs. Therefore, it is not really a very large farm and there is not at first sight any reason why it should not be kept going by that number of people.

Mr. Wells: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that 30 head of cattle had to be sold as a result of this call-up and that four breeding sows are now being kept in the hope that these people will be able to obtain assistance and start pig breeding again? There would be more stock on the farm than there is at present if this call-up had not caused the stock to be depleted as much as it has been.

Mr. Maclean: Yes. I fully appreciate that, and I am afraid that it is a fact that National Service is bound to inflict certain hardships on the young men who are called up and their families. I am afraid that is something which has to be accepted and which has been accepted all along since National Service was first instituted. But our criterion in these matters, once the decision has been taken by the Ministry of Labour that a man shall be called up, is that we only release a man when it is clear that his absence will cause the family business or firm, or whatever it may be, to collapse altogether. From what the hon. Gentleman said, it is quite clear that Mr. Barten's farm is not in any immediate danger of collapse. If there were to be any drastic change in the situation, if, for instance, Mr. Barten senior's health were to deteriorate, or if any other disaster were to overtake this family—and I sincerely hope it will not—then I should be only too glad to look into the case again.

Mr. Wells: On that point, Mr. Barten senior is at the moment unable to work. He is under the doctor's care now.

Mr. Maclean: Yes, but I am still not convinced that that is likely to produce a complete breakdown of the farm, or that it will be necessary to sell the farm. But if the hon. Gentleman will let me have particulars of Mr. Barten's present illness, I will certainly have a look at it, though it does not seem at first sight as if that were likely to prove decisive.
I think that this a pretty clear case and one which is covered by a clearly-defined policy which has been in force


for a number of years. First of all, the question of whether or not a farmer should be called up is a matter for the Ministry of Labour, and that is therefore in the hands of my right hon. and learned Friend, the Minister of Labour. We reconsider whether a man should be released only if he quite definitely shows that since his call-up there has been a radical change in his situation. Secondly, there is the question of Private Barten's health. Quite clearly there can be no question of his being released on health grounds. He is perfectly fit to do the job he is doing, which is a useful job and which releases a fitter man for more active employment. In that way he is being as useful to the Army as any other National Service man.
Finally, there is the question of the farm. From what the hon. Member said, and from what I have been able to ascertain, the farm is not in any danger of collapse. There is no danger of Pte.

Barten's parents being forced to sell their farm and stock simply on account of his absence. They are managing on their present labour resources.
So I would say that it is a clear case in which there is no margin of doubt. We are always ready to look sympathetically at borderline cases and, if we can, stretch a point to let men go, but in this case I really do not think there is any margin of doubt on any of those scores.
There is no question that he should not have been called up—he was rightly called up—there is no doubt that his health is good enough to allow him to stay in the Army, and there is no doubt, at present at any rate, that his parents are managing to carry on with the farm in his absence.

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Twelve o'clock.